wisconsin. his proposal is an affront to all workers. when he says state employees should contribute more, all he's really saying is they should accept massive cuts in salary without being offered a seat at the negotiating table. and we're not talking about huge salaries here. this is not about budgeting. this is about union-busting and it is the kind of policy that will only hurt workers in the state and across the country but it only leads to stalled economic growth and the slashing of jobs. . the prsess of collective bargain -- the process of collective bargaining has led to the rise of the middle class. it's a fair process that allows lawyers to sit at the table and craft an agreement that serves both parties. it's a fundamentally american process -- may i have an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: would the gentlelady suspend? the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a

message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california may proceed. ms. lee: this process of collective bargaining has led to the rise of the middle class. it's an american process, it's a democratic process, yet governor walker is bent on undoing decades of hard-earned concession won by organized labor. if he's successful, we'll see further assaults around the country on union workers and in other states that are experiencing budgetary woes. in response to governor walker's actions elected officials, an we're proud to stand in solidarity with the elected officials in wisconsin to protest his actions.

public employees have shown they're serious about balancing the budget by agreeing to his pension and health care requests, concessions the governor himself says will solve the budget challenge. but still it seems like this is not enough. the governor's efforts are denying the rights of tax paying nurses, educators, emergency response workers, all people who, you know, probably are our next door neighbors. we all know public employees who this will hurt. these are union workers who need and should have a voice. at the same time, he's pressing for a bill that will do nothing to fix the budget. this bill will shatter relationships among educators and school leaders undermining current innovations around teacher compensation, evaluation and improvements. it will really have a chilling effect on teacher recruitment and sends a terrible message about the value of public service. mr. speaker, there are ominous

signs on the horizons that reflect a growing sentiment by governors who seem bent on bust ing -- -- on union busting to undo collective bargaining agreements. union workers and public employees are being used as scapegoats to balance the budget. teachers, nurses, police, firemen and others who perform their jobs dutyfully are being treated shabbily by this governor and those who share his union busting and anti-collective bargaining philosophy. i hope that cooler heads prevail and i urge the governor to pull the state back from this radical governmental overreach. i see my colleague from wisconsin, congresswoman moore, will be with us. i want to say to congresswoman moore that my constituents in the ninth congressional district stand in solidarity with you and all those bold and

brave leaders who have left the state and also on behalf of all the union workers and all those who have come to the capitol to say, enough is enough. thank you, congresswoman moore, for your leadership. thank you, congresswoman christensen. mrs. christensen: thank you for your leadership. we have a number of women leaders here. i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from maryland, who has been a leader on many issues, including during the health care reform debate to make sure that those who were insured were protected, congresswoman donna edwards. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, congresswoman christensen. i'm here today because i look at the fight and struggle of the workers in wisconsin, the public sector workers, as connected, the dots kecked to the struggles of workers across

this country. for 20 years we've seen an erosion of the organized labor force, the organized work force and it isn't just the private secor workers who have lost over these 20 years, it's our public sector workers. s the fight in which we're engaged now. the union movement and collective bargaining have brugget us minimum wage, not for our organized workers but for those of us who are not organized. it's brought us decent workplaces, safe working conditions, health care, disability, vacation, family and medical leave and the list goes on and on. i want to step back in our history a little bit, mr. speaker, and take a look at what's happened to the organized work force. jobs shipped outside of this country for private sector workers, a depletion of the organized work force. we've also seen a circumstance

where our state and municipal employees have done everything we've asked them to do, even in a tough economy in saying that they will make concessions as all workers have in this economy because they believe in holding the line for all of their workers so that people will not have to lose jobs but they've taken furlough, they've taken pay freezes, they've taken cuts in benefits and even in wisconsin, we know that the work force there, the public sector workers, have given on all of those money issues. so we have to ask ourselves, mr. speaker, what is at the bottom of this? what's at the bottom of this in my view, mr. speaker is that this is about busting up unions. we started with the private sector workers. we put a chi bosh on the ability of all of our workers to organize and bargain for themselves. now we're with public sector workers. so i think that this is a race to the bottom.

mr. speaker. it's a race to the bot -- to the bottom for the american worker. so the struggle for workers in wisconsin is a struggle for all workers. when a worker is asked to give up $50 a month in contributions to a pension plan or $100 a month, let's think about what that means for that family. that $50 or $100 is the difference between having oatmeal and cereal and milk and eggs and paying the utilities every month. that's what $50 or $100 means. that's not just something that's thrown away. so mr. speaker, i stand here with my colleagues in deep solidarity with the workers, the public sector workers of wisconsin because i know that as sure as their struggle goes, the struggle with all workers goes across the country. and we have to link those fights. we have the -- we have to end the decades-long race to the

bottom, mr. speaker. we're being canned to look at trade agreements where we trade away private sector jobs, our public sector workers, our teachers, our firefighters, our law enforcement. people who take care of our children on a day-to-day basis. we're saying to them, you're not valued. you're not worth enough even in this economy. i don't think that that's the message that the american people want to send. mr. speaker, clearly the polls show that across this country a vast majority, an overwhelming majority,up wards of 60% of the american public believes in the right to bargain collectively. what is collective bargaining? collective bargaining is sitting around at a table, having a fair shake, getting a fair deal and dealing as equal partners. let's look at what's happened in wisconsin and across this country. contracts were struck. if a contract were made in the

private sector and one of the parties wanted to reanything -- to renege on that contract, the other party would probably take them to court. they would be in litigation. yet here in wisconsin and across this country, workers are being asked every day, they're being told every day that the other person who was on the other side of an equal bargaining table is is going to renege on a contract. there is something that is deeply anti-democratic about that. so is i'm here, mr. speaker, because public sector workers in wisconsin deserve our solidarity and as a member of the congressional black caucus, we know deeply of the struggle for freedom and for justice. and we know an injustice when we see it. we're witnessing what looks to be an injustice in wisconsin and ohio and indiana and perpetrated all across this country when it comes to the

rights of workers and the ability to organize and the ability to bargain collectively for a decent workplace for decent wages and for the ability to take care of one's family and one's self and we stand toe to toe, shoulder to shoulder, and union card to union card with our public sector workers and with all workers across this country who deserve not a race to the bottom, mr. speaker, but a race to the top. with that, i would yield. mrs. christensen: thank you, congresswoman edwards. thank you for those really strong words to encourage our union members in wisconsin and ohio and indiana and wherever else unions are under attack. we appreciate your being here with us this evening and for reassuring those workers that you and the congressional black caucus are standing firmly with them.

at this time, i'd like to yield such time as she might consume to the gentlelady from ohio, former mayor, also a strong fighter for children, for the poor, and for the underserved. congresswoman marcia fudge. ms. fudge: i rise today to express my strong opposition to attempts by the republican governor of wisconsin and the republican governor of the state of ohio from which i hail. to undermine collective bargaining for public employees. in my state, ohio senate bill 5 is a measure currently under consideration by the ohio general assembly that would strip state workers of their collective bargaining rights. today, this bill was approved by the senate's insurance commerce and labor committee. it now moves to the state senate floor for final vote which would begin as early as today. this vote comes after ohio's

state and local union workers gathered in protest on yesterday at the state house, just yesterday, more than 8,500 people surrounded the state house to express their disapproval. i firmly support the right of public employees to collectively negotiate. who are we as a nation when we tell our firefighters, our police officers, and other public protectors that they don't deserve a say in their working conditions. does a teacher's experience or education have no economic value? ohio's proposed legislation is less about fiscal responsibility than it is an overt political attack on public workers who speak with a collective voice. as labor battles erupt across this cupry, a majority of americans say they oppose efforts to weaken the checkive bargaining rights of public employees. i want to join with my colleagues today to just talk a bit about what is happening not

just in wisconsin, though we are here today because of all that has gone on in wisconsin and i would now yield back to our chair so that we may discuss this in another form. mrs. christensen: certainly. before we begin that, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and enter extraneous material in the matter under discussion this evening. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so order. mrs. christensen: thank you. to begin this dialogue, i'd like to turn to the gentlelady from wisconsin who feels it and who knows it, gwen moore. ms. moore: thank you so much for yielding an thank you, mr. chairman, during this hour. i want to thank the congressional black caucus members and the women of the congressional black caucus for joining me here today. the congressional black caw --

caucus has been known as the conscience of the congress because we understand that budgets and these initiatives to break the collective bargaining agreements are being presented to us in the context of a budget. we all know that budgets are not about numbers. this is proof of that. it's about values. and where you place your money is where you place your heart. so i'd like to talk about the situation in wisconsin. you know, there are a few things that have been -- misinformation, let me say that , arn this budget. i appreciate the fact that we have a physician here with us this evening, who is an expert on the medicaid program. we have an attorney here with the gentlelady from ohio, and

we have the gentlelady from maryland, who is is an expert on all kinds of programs that deal with family issues. and so i need you to help me sort out some of the things that have been misinformationed and disinformationed in this campaign. let me say that once served on the joint committee on finance and put the budget together as a state senator in the wisconsin legislature. so i know that the opening balance to the budget was a $121 million surplus. . that is not a lot of money for a statutoryry quirmente in the account but left a cushion of $54 million in those accounts. nothing like the $3.6 billion deficit that the governor likes to present as his basis for

these draconian cuts in collective bargaining. what is a structural deficit? a structural deficit is the difference between what the agencies of the government request and what the governor provides. and so when is the last time the agencies have gotten every dime they have asked for? never. so it's a phony structural deficit. but given the fact that our governor, just like any governor, has budget challenges, i respect the fact that you know, sometimes, you have to make unpleasant cuts. so what the governor proposed to do was to realize savings by requiring that state employees, except for the police and fire

and state troopers, pay 5.8% of their pension funds and little over 12% of their health care funds. and to make those contributions generating $725 million in savings. the unions agreed to do that. but the governor said no. no. i do not want to negotiate with you. i want to strip you of your rights to collective bargain and the exact words of the bill were that they were prohibited from bargaining from anything related to their conditions of

employment. i wonder if the gentlelady from ohio would yield, that they are unable to negotiate on any conditions of employment except for the 1% wage within the consumer price index. ms. fudge: i thank you for yielding and allowing me this time. as mayor of a city, i balanced budgets for nine years ain understand what it takes to balance a budget. wisconsin being very similar to ohio, when you look at the fact that wages and benefits for public employees in the state of ohio account for only 9% of the budget, 9%. so ohio is saying that, as your that they have this huge deficit and saying they have an $8 billion deficit.

in ohio, if we were to fire every single public employee in the state of ohio, we would save $2 billion. they would have a $6 billion. public employees is not the problem. for them to talk about wages is ridiculous and nothing but a smoke scene and they are saying we are taking away your rights. they have no rights at all. there is no collective voice. there is nothing that they can do to protect themselves. they have taken their seniority, security. it is to me the most barbaric thing i have seen in a long time. ms. moore: would the gentlelady yield? another myth and an untruth that has abounded in this debate that somehow these public sector employees that are very well

educated, some of them are nurses, school teachers, career executives in state government, well educated people make less, it is true, they make less than their peers in the private sector because as part of their compensation, they have accepted less in wages so they could have a pension, so that they could have health care benefits. and so the misinformation, the effort to get antagonism against public employees is totally faulty and i want you to share this with me as a lawyer and as a former chief executive -- the pensions are obligations, because people have already earned that money in lieu of the

salary they may have received in the private sector, am i right about that? ms. fudge: we were talking about that in our remarks. ms. edwards: this is not a valid substantive debate. we want to address substantive arguments to refute the misinformation that you describe. this is an ideological debate that is about one thing only and it is about busting the union that it's an ideological debate. it's about privatizing a pension system. it's even ideological debate that says services and -- can be provided better in the private sector. i think we have to be very clear here that if it were -- if this were a valid substantive debate, then i think that the workers of

wisconsin would win on that. this is an ideological battle and it's an ideological battle that is rooted in flashing and burning public sector workers under the guise of balancing a budget. ms. moore: will the gentlelady yield? ms. edwards: i will. ms. moore: it's very interesting that you should raise that, because, in fact, the governor of our state in his previous capacity as milwaukee county executive hired private security guards for the county jail and a court just this past january ordered milwaukee county to restore those public servants to their jobs, and, in fact, they

are required to do that. and it was all presented as a budgetary crisis. the court found that the county executive, now our governor, had overstated the savings that would be realized by privatizing those county prison guards. and it's been the same tactic. and indeed, the police and firefighters and state troopers were excluded from the collective bargaining prohibitions and the prison guards were not. and as a state legislator and i served with our current governor, he did introduce a bill to try to privatize our prison system. so that's a very, very important insight. ms. fudge: just to take it a step forward, there is an assault on working people across this country and this house as

well. as these communities and these states have come under republican controlled, we talk about our own budget that we have to deal with entitlement programs and they throw in social security. it is not an entitlement program but funded by payroll taxes and taxes on employers, it is not an entitlement program. but we hear them wanting to privatize. they want to take away the rights of workers across this country, not going to stop across ohio, wisconsin and florida, it is a plan. all workers and those that you talked about who are retired are going to feel the effects of this as we go forward. this is just the tip of the iceberg. this is a battle we have to win. ms. edwards: we have gone through an exercise and continue to go through a budget exercise here in this congress with

respect to federal workers. so i said to some federal workers, your struggle as a federal worker is connected to the struggle of private sector workers and public sector workers at the state and municipal level and let me tell you about that. first, we have federal workers who are facing a two-year pay freeze. and they have accepted that, because they are good public servants. then they face people who say that federal workers are greatly overpaid when it comes to the private sector. but just as in wisconsin, when you examine deeply the work that the workers do, you examine their job skills compared to the private sector job skills, and what you find as in fact, they are greatly underpaid in the same job categories requiring the same skills and education as their private sector counterparts. i don't want to suggest, mr.

speaker, that, in fact, private sector workers have made out like bandits over the last 20 years because what we know is that private sector workers, including the organized work force have faced stagnant wages and benefits over the course of the last two decades. and that's why i think it is important for us to connect the dots with workers because i think opponents out there who would like to privatize the public work force, opponents who would like to delegitimatize and diagnose aggregate unions and would like to bust them up, also would like to suggest that it's the public sector workers fighting against the private sector workers against the federal work force. no. this is the entire work force has pointed out across the board, across this country that has suffered massive, massive assaults on working people, on

middle-class people when it comes to wages and benefits. and wisconsin serves the purpose of highlighting for us the transparency and the meanness of what it takes to go after working families. ms. moore: reclaiming my time. you know, there are a couple of other myths i want to bust before i turn to the gentlelady, the doctor, physician in our caucus, to talk about medicaid a little bit, because that links in with this union-busting effort. you know, this whole -- congresswoman from maryland, you talk about trying to pit public workers, private sector workers against public sector workers, i'm happy to say those unions in the private sector in wisconsin have stood firm with the public sector employees. i'm happy to report to you that the firefighters and the police, those unions that were exempted

from this collective bargaining fiasco stand firm with public employees. why? because they get it. they get it that the games made by organized labor inure to all workers. in wisconsin, 19th century, may 5, 1886, five people in my district, in bay view, in wisconsin, were killed and four were wounded, attacked by troops, you know called on them by the then-governor, fighting for the eight-hour working day. workers in unions have won the weekend, safety conditions in the workplace, workers have won these benefits and they have inured to the private sector.

and those people who are in the private sector need to respect the sacrifice, the blood and the tears. you know, wisconsin was a state where the first workers' comp. law passed, first state to have unemployment compensation. it was the birth place of afscme. this has been a progressive state. this is another -- we have 14 very brave state senators who have left the state so they would not have to vote on these draconian union provisions. and the governor has said that because -- because they're leaving, that there are going to be massive layoffs and firings and it will be their fault. i want to point one thing out.

he revealed his budget just yesterday afternoon. and he has reduced state aid. he has reduced shared revenue to all of the counties, villages, cities and municipalities to the tune of $639 -- 6 -- $6.9 million. he has reduced aid to schools, kindergarten through twelft grade and technical colleges to the tune of $1 billion. so these local communities, school districts, will have to lay off snow shovelers, teachers, teachers will find themselves in classrooms they predict as many as 60 kids in

them. they are cutting medicaid in this state. and i'll get back to that later, because they are draconian cuts. in the meantime, we are providing $7.6 billion for roads, local money and federal money together. we are providing total 100% tax relief for capital gains taxes for businesses that locate in the community for up to five years. we are providing, his special sessions bill provided at least $200 million worth of tax breaks, at the same time we're reducing school aid by $1 billion. i see that the gentlelady from

washington, d.c. also -- also a very esteemed attorney, has come to join us here. we were talking about the loss of the collective bargaining agreement in wisconsin. something that has no fiscal impact but that the governor insists must be a part of his budget. i would yield to you at this time. ms. norton: i am here in solidarity with the gentlewoman from wisconsin and with my friend from the virgin islands as well, and in special solidarity with the workers in wisconsin, ohio, and indiana who are fighting for their collective bargaining rights. now, unlike the gentlewoman from wisconsin, i don't know whether paying 5.8% into the

retirement benefit is good or not or whether paying 12% of the health care costs, i know it's double or triple the amount. i don't know about any of that. i do know that when you have a health care and retirement system, there is usually a quid pro quo, you take less pay, but -- i don't know the answer to that. all i know is that in a democratic society, where people have won collective bargaining rights, those matters are bargained at the table. i am here to reinforce the importance of collective bargaining rights that are now on the table of the country, beginning in wisconsin, spreading rapidly and watch out, they could come, insidious

movement against collective bargaining could even come to the congress of the united states. we have to stop it in its tracks. in the midwest. and any -- in any free society there are four or five rights that everybody will cite, the right to free speech, the right to religion and guess what, the right to bargain collectively. once you have established that the workers have elected a union, is is one of those fundamental rights. i want to say to the gentlewoman from wisconsin if one of the developing countries that we always complain are not democratic enough were to take away the collective bargaining rights of some of its workers, you would have to fight people at to e-- at the well in order to quell the stampede of people saying, you have violated a fundamental right of a free

society. i just came from a hearing on the postal service. it was amazing to hear management and the private sector say that the reason you have a public -- a post office today and that it hasn't gone down the drain is because the workers, across the table from management, have helped them to manage the downsizing of the postal service. the best thing that you can have when there is downsizing to be done is indeed -- to have a union. when people know that the downsizing that -- the rights they hope they had, that they don't have, have been bargained for, they will accept those rights in a way they would not if management came in and just pulled them himself. that is what governor walker is trying to do. >> will the gentlelady yields

in -- yield? ms. moore: -- ms. moore: if you're going to make those downsizing, our workers said, we'll negotiate and try to help the state. but if you're going to downsize, you want to think at least you're doing it for the public good. you don't want to think you're doing it so you can give $200 million in tax cuts so that you can privatize the nuclear power plants in the state. you would think if you're going to pay 12.8% of your own health care that that would mean that at least the governor was going to protect the most vulnerable who are on medicaid. i am sad to be able to share with you, dr. christensen, that in his budget a family care program, medicaid program, to pay for in-home services for seniors and people with disabilities, to only those who are currently enrolled.

all the 2,000 people on the waiting list, no services. he's going to seek permission from the federal government to cut eligibility standards to cut off third categories of nonpregnant or nondisabled adults or lower eligibility. he is not a fan of planned parenthood. he wants to cut off family planning services for men. he's expecting right now they're forced to continue their maintenance effort, at least until july, when the enhanced fmap runs out but he is again seeking those waivers so he can cut off categories of people. ms. edwards: if i could -- mrs. christensen: if i could just say for a moment, it sounds like what's happening here, as the gentlelady has

said and our other colleagues have said, this is not just an issue for ohio, wisconsin, and indiana, this is an issue for our country. the same thing that's being done in wisconsin is is what's being done here. tax giveaways to the wealthy and the business while we cut health care programs, education programs, community economic development programs for people across america who need them. and that's why we have decided today, as a caucus, to come here and voice our support and to give encouragement to the workers and to your legislators who have had to leave wisconsin to prevent these devastating cuts to -- that will further damage the health, and i'm sure your state is no different from other states, where the poor

people of color, women, are not getting the kind of health care that they need. what we need is to make sure that the benefits that we passed last year in the patient protection and affordable care act are implemented in wisconsin and everywhere and what your governor is doing is going backwards instead of forwards. ms. moore: backwards instead of forwards. $900 billion from our school system. $250 million in state aid for the university of wisconsin system is. $71.6 million if the technical college system. low income children and families requiring women who receive temporary assistance to pay, they are cutting them by $20 a month. 3% of the tanif checks. mrs. christensen: and the check

is not big to begin with. ms. moore: the check is small. there's talk of requiring them to move from 28 hours of work a week to 30 hours of work a week. and reducing the amount of child care that they can get. and again, the theme for this budget, our governor's budget is that wisconsin is open for business. well, no state can be open for business by slamming the doors of educational opportunity and denying babies and poor people and seniors health care. it is more a case that, you know, that we're selling our state to business interests and i would yield to the gentlelady from d.c. ms. kristen -- ms. nor -- ms. norton: i want to bring this home to what's happening

on the floor of this congress as we speak. there is too little recognition of what you have indicated that when you strangle agencies, when you cut agencies, you strangle services. that goes for the federal sector as well. and i think we have to be very leery that this could come to the federal sector. federal workers have been targeted. they've got a great big bull's eye on their back. they are among the best educated workers in the united states. bear in mind, i say to the gentlelady, because this will particularly be important in your state, the deadly deficit commission. warned that no cutting should be done in this year, 2011, that small cuts perhaps in 2012, an no real programmatic cuts until 2013. they gave as a reason.

this is the deficit commission. they gave as a reason that you would strangle the recovery. it's a fragile recovery. bernanke spoke, i don't know if anyone has mentioned -- ms. moore: we haven't mentioned it. ms. norton: i'm not on that committee but i heard what he said. he said as well, don't harm the recovery. you don't in the midst of a bear recovery start acting as though you had a full-fledged economy. everybody's been talking about a double dip. they're going to find out what a double dip. if we have what independent observers say, 700,000 jobs gone because of these cuts, gone in wisconsin. gone from the federal government, there is is no way for us to recover. we cannot kick workers to the cush without having an effect

on the -- to the curb without having an effect on the retvry itself. watch out, wisconsin, and i say to my republican colleagues, watch out that you don't bring it here and don't miss with the collective bargaining of our federal employees the way you're doing in wisconsin. ms. moore: will the gentlelady yield? in january, our economy nationwide gained 36,000 jobs. hardly anything to brag about. but i can tell you this, this wisconsin state budget fires 21,000 -- 21,600 state employees alone. when you consider the cuts to municipalities, cities, villages, counties, there are thousands more that are going to lose their jobs. so these, you talk about hurting the recovery, how can you recover when people don't have jobs to consume and those who do have jobs find their

income cut by 6% or 7% because of the givebacks in their pensions and for their health care. not only that, they're balancing the budget on the backs of children, on the backs of seniors, but -- it's penny wise and pound foolish. i liven a great lake. 20% of the earth's fresh water is in those great lakes. and what does this budget do? it reduces the quote-unquote burden that municipalities have in cleaning the water. reducing standards for water cleanliness. it ends the recycling program. so it's penny wise, but we're going to destroy the environment, redeuce educational opportunity, redeuce health care to the most indigent and vulnerable in our population but we're giving tax

breaks to the wealthiest wisconsinites to encourage them to invest 100% forgiveness of capital gains taxes, 7.-- $7.6 billion for roads, we're going to privatize the nuclear power plants, one of the great contributors to the governor's campaign, happens to be in the nuclear power plant business. and we're all doing this in the name of balancing a budget. i hope that the people in wisconsin don't fall for this trick. mrs. christensen: "new york times" did a poll and show that the majority of americans and i'm sure in the states who are facing these issues oppose this and are against cutting the pay or benefits of public workers to

reduce state budget deficits. they oppose weakening collective bargaining by 60%. and not just democrats but independents. they oppose cutting pay and benefits. the majority of americans, over 56% oppose cutting pay and benefits and most of those surveyed are not union members and don't have union members in their family. so the american people get it. they don't like what they are seeing. ms. fudge: would the gentlelady yield? the americans understand a fundamental right. ms. norton: don't go into peoples' rights. this majority rode into town on the promise of jobs. they voted to cut jobs. they cut jobs from the health care bill. now they are cutting hundreds of

thousands of jobs on the floor with their own version of deficit reduction. all we are asking for is balance. the workers in wisconsin are willing to take cuts. they said don't take away our collective bargaining. everyone is willing to share. the governor wants it all. collective bargaining is about sharing. they need collective bargaining to get a fair deal for all concerned in wisconsin. and i compliment the gentlelady from wisconsin for reinforcing her workers and reinforcing what the gentlewoman from if the virgin islands has told you is the majority of the people. ms. moore: i thank you for pulling this hour together. you know, as my aunt used to say, the truth will set you free. and i hope that those who have watched this debate will try to see through some of the partisan

bickering that has gone on. just to reinforce a few points that we've made. the effort to take away the ability for union members to not only collective bargain for themselves, but when they win those rights, so-called freeploaders, people who are not in the union, benefit from those gains. that has nothing to do with budget issues, nothing to do with money. those rights are things that have something to do with your conditions of employment, your ability to relate to your employer and negotiate with him on noneconomic issues as well as economic issues. this budget crisis is a creation of this governor. we started out with a surplus

budget in wisconsin. and the first thing he did when he came into office was to provide at least $300 million in tax benefits to the various wealthy and then declare we now have an emergency. i would yield back to the gentlelady for closing. mrs. christensen: you did say the emergency was created. ms. moore: exactly. and the same reason the governor lost his case by firing his 26 guards. same pattern. he is creating a false emergency. mrs. christensen: do you see the same thing happening here in this congress? ms. moore: exactly. mrs. christensen: i want to thank all of my colleagues for joining me this evening to talk about this issue, because again, this is not about budgeting.

this is about union busting and it's the kind of policy that will not only hurt workers in the state and across the country, but only leads to stall economic growth in the slashing of jobs. it's the kind of policy that hurts our nation. we want to make sure our workers in wisconsin, ohio, indiana and everywhere know that the congressional black caucus stands with you. we want to let our country's labor leaders, the union leadership know that we stand with them and support them. and that we have the highest respect and support for the democratic legislators that have drawn the line and did what had to be done to stop the egregious attacks on the middle class and the poor. thank you, mr. speaker. and we yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d

, provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date in accordance with this provision i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to the actions and policies of certain members of the government of zimbabwe and other persons to undermine its democratic processes or institutions is to continue in effect beyond march 6, 2011. the crisis constituted by the actions and policies of the certain members of the government of zimbabwe and other persons to undermine the processes or institutions has not been resolved. while some advances have been made in zimbabwe particularly on

economic stabilization since the power-sharing agreement, the fundamental reforms to ensure rule of law leaves the people of zimbabwe to ongoing repression and is a continuing threat to peace and security in the region and foreign policy of the united states. politically motivated violence and intimidation and undermining of the power-sharing agreement by elements of the zimbabwe national african union continues to be of grave concern. for these reasons i have determined that it is necessary to continue this national emergency and to maintain in force the sanctions to respond to this threat. the united states welcomes the opportunity to modify the targeted sanctioned regime when blocked by persons demonstrated by clear commitment to respect the rule of law, democracy and human rights. the united states has committed to continue its review of the targeted sanctions list for

zimbabwe to ensure it remains current and addresses the concerns for which it was created. we hope that the events on the ground will allow us to take additional action to recognize progress in zimbabwe in the future, the goal of a peaceful, democratic zimbabwe remains foremost in any consideration of action. signed by barack obama, the white house, march 2, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from missouri, mr. aiken, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. akin: it's a treat to join you tonight to talk about a great crisis that our nation is facing. it is becoming apparent to

americans not only do we have a problem with unemployment and jobs but a problem with the federal budget and the deficit and the spending and the taxing. all of those things that go into an economy. of these problems are far more significant, though, than i think many americans are aware. i would like to take about that tonight and to try to keep it in a fairly simple discussion and allow people to know that while as president reagan said, the solution is simple, but it's not easy. requires a great deal of courage. so i'm going to start tonight and in perhaps an odd way. i'm going to ask you, please, to picture that you are either a senator or a congressman in 1850 in america. in 1850, you would have noted

that there was increasing discussion as the new territories became available, whether they would be allowed to come into our nation as a free state or a slave state. created a lot of political tension between the different representatives representing different points of view on that subject. by 1852, the book "uncle tom's cabin" was written and became a very popular book and tended to further inflame the issue. the great question of the day, the question was slavery. what would america do with that question? by 1857, the supreme court, deciding to legislate from the bench, which has always turned on the to be a bad idea and beyond their constitutional authority, came up with a decision that came from my state, the state of missouri and

called the dred-scott decision and said black people were property and also said to the congress and the senate that they could not make any kinds of deals as to which state would be slave-free because each state could do whatever they wanted. the stage was set as the president lincoln was to be elected and as he was on the train leaving illinois, a number of southern states ceded from the union and the america was involved in a terrible, terrible civil war and claimed 600,000 lives, that's more than all the people that have been killed in

all the rest of the wars we have fought in our nation's history. of course a statistic like 600,000 may seem to make your eyes glaze over, but when you start to hear the individual and personal stories of people who were who arebly touched and families that were destroyed by the horror of the war and you recall the words of the second inaugural address of abraham lincoln as he talked about the war had been far, far worse than anybody had imagined was possible. that great tragedy, that terrible cost that was paid by our nation was the result of a failure of leadership, a failure to deal with a massive, fundamental question that everybody knew was there all through the 1850's, the question of slavery. and the failure was not just in

the congress and the senate, but it was in the people of the states for being too disengaged and unwilling to take that question head on. the parallel today, i think is a little bit similar. today, just as it was in 1850, there is a gorilla in our tent and that is the problem with the federal government spending too much money. and i want to put it in simple terms, not that your eyes glaze over but to get a sense of balance as to what's going on, because my proposition is that we are spending too much money. the government is spending too much money and it is unsustainable. now, this is something that many thought, liberals and conservatives agree. there is much disagreement as to what to do about it. the numbers are the numbers.

there is something about math that way and that is what we are going to talk about, the simple view of what the numbers are today and why this is a crisis that we must address. we cannot ignore the gorilla in the tent. this is something that americans must become aware of and must be participants in solving the problem. as we do that, the jobs will return. america will hold their -- her head high again and almost like a ship with a big wave, the ship will shake loose the water that threatens to push it to the bottom and lift its bow and sail further on. i'm going to take a look at some stuff that sometimes politicians talk about in spy and make it simple. we have a thing the federal government is spending money on, classic pie chart.

and i have over here, social security, medicare and medicaid. that is a pretty big piece of the chart. and these things are called by politicians, they are called by entitlements. i'm an engineer that ended up in politics and entitlements is a machine created by law and it might have been created 30 years ago and it is where it spits out paper towels and this machine spits out dollar bills. so the entitlement is like a little machine, it is put on the track and off it goes spitting out dollar bills and anybody who qualifies gets money. these programs, if you qualify, you get money. there are other entitlements as well and in addition to other entitlements, there is something that acts an awful lot like an entitlement which is the interest on our debt. the person expects to be paid

interest and the machine spits out dollar bills. . if you add these other entitlements and take the net interest on our debt, you put that together, it comes up to $2.2 $2.2 trillion. it's bigger than i can understand but we can compare it to something else and that's the revenue of the federal government. everybody in america pays their taxes and the money comes into washington, d.c. and that's our revenue. the revenues $ 2.2 trillion. so the entitlementon is the same thing as our revenue. well, what's left over to pay for national defense, and what's left over to pay for the rest of the running of the government? this nondefense discretionary would be the federal prisons, the federal parks, department of energy and commerce and justice and education, all

those different things, those are the nondefense. so, in other words, what i'm saying is this. if you zero out defense so there's not a soldier left, not a rifle, not a ship or a plane left and zero out everything else in the federal government, when you zero those out, you now have a balanced budget because entitlements to debt service are taking every last penny we get in revenue. that is a serious problem. i'm joined by a very good friend of mine from louisiana, a man who is growing in stature and feared, loved and respected, my good friend steve scalise from the great state of indiana. please join us, steve. mr. scalise: i want to thank my good friend from missouri, you know, when we talk about feared, loved, i'm not sure where we fit in but i do think it's important -- mr. akin: the fear is because of people who want for white wash what went on with the big oil spill but you got on it and told people the truth and i respect that.

thank you, sir. mr. scalise: that's the beauty of the people's house and what you're doing, holding this weekly town hall forum we call it to talk to the american people about what is really happening in the people's house, in the congress, and how it affects people all across this country. i had three town hall meetings last week when i was back in my district when congress had finished dealing with one part of this budget problem, and i think when you talk about what's wrong with the spending, how out-of-control spending is in washington, we had taken some action two weeks ago to say it's finally time to start righting the ship and speaker pelosi had the reins of the house of representatives for four years and of course during that four years that speaker pelosi was running the house, we saw unbridled runaway spending, record deficits to the point now we have a $1.5 trillion deficit. the one thing she left behind we're dealing with is the fact speaker pelosi didn't even bring a budget to the house floor last year so there was

not even a budget when families across this country had their own family budgets and families and small businesses are dealing with their crisis in cutting spending. mr. akin: let me interrupt for a second because you're bringing up a whole lot of additional facts. let me try and put this in perspective. in 1974 we came up with a budget act and every year since 1974 there was a budget in the house, you might have liked it or might not have liked it but there was a budget anyway for what's going to go on in terms of federal spending. last year, under speaker pelosi, there was just no budget, none. and so what a lot of people see us dealing with now, and i think you're getting to this point, and that is the fact that we're doing what you do in the federal government when you don't have a budget and it's called a continuing resolution, and i think maybe you were going down that direction so i yield to my friend. mr. scalise: you're exactly right because when we're talking about where we are today, it's important to look at how we got into this mess

and the mess that we're trying to clean up. but the fact that historically last year's, speaker pelosi failed to even bring a budget to the floor when she was speaker so there was nol budget that was passed. so what that means is, like i said, while families are putting together their own budgets and families and businesses are dealing with the problems in the economy and shortfalls and they're cutting back and doing more with less, the congress didn't even pass a budget. and so under speaker boehner now as we've got this new republican majority here, we came up with a plan to fund the government for the rest of the year but to fund it in a way that actually started cutting spending. because i think one of the big problems that's been out there for a long time, things that you and i want to deal with, we want to cut spending and start putting our country back on the path to a balanced budget. so we had this debate two weeks ago in the house where we said, ok, we want to be responsible about funding government but that means we've got to start making real cuts.

you can't just keep spending at the rate you're spending with the deficits that go along with it, we've got to start cutting so this pie that you showed actually starts getting addressed and shrunk in a way federal spending starts getting closer to matching the amount of revenue coming in. mr. akin: if i could piggyback in to talk about what you're saying, a couple weeks ago we had basically a budget on the floor of the house but the budget, interestingly enough is what's called the discretionary side, so the budget was for this green, the defense, and this -- what is that, tomato soup? maybe it's campbell's tomato soup. this is the nondefense discretion. so the budget only dealt with this session and we were making cuts to that section. and what of course you have to ask yourself is, how about all this other stuff? of course this wasn't touched. so proceed, please, because i think it's a good story. people need to understand what we're working on was the first thing we had to work on, which is the fact there wasn't any

budget that we're running on so we're trying to put a budget together between now and october 1, if i recall, sir. mr. scalise: so finally, to address the real problem in the country with this runaway spending, what we said under both speaker boehner and the chairman of the appropriations committee, hall rodgers, is we've got to stop the bleeding -- hal rogers, is we've got to stop the bleeding and cut spending. we brought a bill to the floor to allow to $100 billion, billion with a b, real cuts to spending at the federal level to finally start that process. and by no means is this the finished product but it was the first start of the process of finally getting spending under control. so that bill came to the floor, we had a lot of debate, open process, any member could bring an amendment to that bill. i brought an amendment to get rid of a bunch of these czars, these czars killing jobs in our country that are getting paid millions to go out and try to implement radical policies that run jobs to china and india and

other places, and that amendment passed. a lot of good amendments passed to cut spending but ultimately what we said was we set a new tone. we're number one and will put our money where our mouth is. we promise if we get the reins of power in the house we will start cutting spending and we cut $100 billion and sent that to the senate. we're almost at two weeks past the point we passed the bill over to the senate and they still haven't even had one ounce or one minute of hearings or debate of that bill we spent to -- sent to them. mr. akin: why was it they didn't want to look at the bill? they could have brought a bill up the same way and said i don't think you should have cut this much, we should have done this and this and could have made changes and gone back and forth and we would have had a budget and we could get on with what should be done this year instead of what should have been last fall or actually last year before the fall. so, anyhow, proceed, please.

mr. scalise: i think it became very clear very quickly what is at stake here. there was a battle line that was drawn. in fact, as we were debating that bill to cut $100 billion, and with the $1.5 trillion deficit this year, $100 billion is just a start. well, the president, president obama comes out and actually starts criticizing us for cutting $100 billion. he said $100 billion is too much. the senate president, harry reid, said $100 billion is too much to cut. again, we're saying $100 billion is just the beginning. we've got to cut more than $100 billion. so you quickly saw a divide. there is a divide right now in washington. i don't think there's a divide in this country. i think most people, the people i've talked to when i go back home to south louisiana, my colleagues that i talk to that are going back home and having town hall meetings, meeting with their constituents, families and small businesses are saying it's about time we're seeing real cuts coming out of washington. but yet the president and the senate leader are saying $100 billion is too much to cut. so we sent them $100 billion.

but what's at stake here, it's not just getting spending under control, it's getting jobs created again in america. one of the reasons that we are seeing such stagnant job growth in this country is the uncertainty that's created by the runaway spending. and so these are interlinked issues. the spending problem in washington and the problem with the slow economic recovery, because people are afraid to create jobs, our job creators are under attack by federal bureaucrats who are buy -- bringing out all these regulations every day to kill jobs. we're seeing in hour home state of south louisiana where the administration doesn't want to explore for energy in america. they've only issued one permit to drill in 10 months when in fact now you're looking at the middle east, we're putting more dependents in this country on middle eastern oil under the obama administration at a time when the middle east has never been in more disarray which is why people are seeing over $3.20 or so a gallon at the pump because of the president's

own policies. this is killing jobs. it's running more -- not only more jobs overseas but it's also raising the price of energy and gasoline for families. mr. akin: you're getting down to the place where we need to be talking this evening and that's about jobs, because americans are wondering, where are the jobs? let's take this thing straight head-on. and the fact of the matter is, first of all, if you allow this monkey business to go on here, this is just silly. there's no way you can excuse kicking the can down the street and ignoring this huge problem. and this huge problem really is connected to jobs, but specifically, here's the things you do to kill jobs, because we had a forum back in my district, st. charles, missouri, and we had a whole bunch of businessmen come in and we asked them what do you do to create jobs and what do you do to kill jobs? the things to kill jobs are what we're doing. what are those things? first of all, we're going to

tax the owners of businesses. that's the first thing. if you tax owners of businesses, they can't expand their business, they can't invest in their business so the business just sits there. in fact, as you tax them more, they take money out of the business to pay the taxes and start laying people off because they can't run their business. so the first thing, if you want to kill jobs is raise the taxes on the people who own business. the second thing you do is bury the business in red tape. we've got an e.p.a. that feels they can run red tape without congress even passing a bill. so they're going to try and pass cap and tax and all these kind of ridiculous regulations that cost a whole lot of money. it's not like a tax but ends up costing people business. one of those interesting, very interesting actions on the part of the e.p.a., just to illustrate red tape is the idea of requiring cleanup in case

you spill milk. usually on farms, the cats lick up the milk but we have with us a genuine hero in the u.s. congress in congresswoman black from tennessee who won a coveted award just earlier this day. it's the golden turkey award. it's for the silliest, dumbest regulation that you can find. and i know the competition is going to be fierce in this category, but congresswoman black won it by plenty of extra as she got her award. and we're going to recognize her tonight for this award that she got which ties right into our subject of jobs and that is it you want to kill jobs, raise taxes on business owners, bury them in red tape, congresswoman black from tennessee. ms. black: thank you. and i'm so honored to unveil this new initiative from our republican study committee.

this right here is the golden turkey award. and each month the r.f.c. will be bestowing this dubious award to highlight the most absurd, most ridiculous and obscure regulation that the taxpayers foot the bill to enforce and have to live by. and this month's golden turkey award goes to a regulation that i have been talking about in my district and here also in congress for the past month. the march 2011 golden turkey award goes to the environmental protection agency. mr. akin: the e.p.a. ms. black: the e.p.a. who recently discovered milk contains fat. can you believe that? and that's also considered an oil. so what did the e.p.a. do? they decided to regulate milk spills. well, the e.p.a. is currently developing a rule that will subject dairy farmers to the spill, prevention, control and countermeasurement program, that's sort of a long word, which was created for oil

contamination in waterways and now they're applying it to our dairy farmers so when nellie kicks over the bucket, we're going to have -- our farmers will have to build berms around the area they milk and will have to have an emergency responder's plan in case milk is spilled, all of the employees will have to be trained for the containment of the spilled milk. mr. akin: you think having some cats around in a cage you could open the cage, you think that would work or do you think the e.p.a. will want something more expensive than that? ms. black: that's an excellent question because when i talked to my dairy farmers in my district and talked about this great idea the e.p.a. has for them, one of the farmers told me they have the plan in place and when asked he said he has a barn with 15 stray cats and he's going to open the doors and well "here, kitty, kitty" and that will take care of the emergency spill. .

mr. akin: how many millions of dollars do you think it's going to take to get this spilled milk under control? i'm glad that our federal government is really dealing with the tough issues like this. mrs. black: it's good that you asked because the rule requires that these emergency protocols be in place by november 10 of this year and the u.s. department of agriculture has already initiated a $3 million pilot program through the natural resources conservation service to help the farmers and the ranchers comply with the on farm oil spill regulations. already we see $3 million that's going to be wasted in just getting the farmers up to speed on how they have to do these plans. and when i was in my district last week, and i spoke to people about this, they were absolutely speechless and it's been told to me by many of the businesses in my district that what they really want is they just want the government to get out of their way. let them do their jobs, stop

overtaxing them, stop overregulating them, so they can actually grow their business. they have the capital to do so and if we would just leave them alone they can grow their business. and so that's why the inaugural golden turkey award is being presented to the e.p.a. and its proposed overregulation of dairy farmers and spilled milk and i'm going to work as hard as i possibly can to make sure that this does not get initiated and that our farmers will be freed from this onerous regulation. mr. akin: i have to wonder, particularly the people out in my state of missouri, what they're thinking when they find out that $3 million of their money is being used to come up with a program to take care of spilled milk. and i don't know how you found this treasure out, i heard there was another one that was similar . i think it was an e.p.a. requirement that you couldn't have rogue dust, so if you're a

farmer you couldn't farm with rogue dust, that means dust that comes off your property and goes over onto somebody else's property. it makes me think that whoever's writing these regulations lives in one of these office buildings downtown here. i want to invite, if there happens to be anybody who's working on the rogue dust program, i'm sure that's another $3 million wonder or maybe worse, just to come out on a combine in the good old state of missouri and just run down a couple of rows of corn and see what happens when that old dusty corn hits the combine and how they're supposed to keep all that dust right over their own property. that's another one of these examples, i think ronald reagan talked about the fact that we're buying too much government. and that's the point, that's what we've been doing the last number of months and the point of the matter is when you start cutting a lot of this government trash, you're going to create jobs in a couple of ways. the first thing is you don't put

us in debt so much, but you start cutting that red tape which is overhead that our business people have to -- they're not having to pay for all that overhead, they can hire people and get the economy going. i think that hats off to congresswoman black from tennessee for winning this prestigious golden turkey award, i suppose the one who technically won it was the e.p.a., is that right? mrs. black: that's right. mr. akin: you highlighted it, you get to be -- isn't there actually like a golden -- some sort of a bowling trophy with a big golden turkey on the top of it or something? mrs. black: you're so right and it's proudly displayed on my desk. it is a trophy that stands about 12 inches high and it is golden and has a golden turkey on the top of it and i'm challenging all of my colleagues to find places that we're having overregulation and killing our businesses and stifling the growth of our economy and stifling job growth. mr. akin: who says we can't have fun in cutting the wasteful

spending out of government, at least do it with a little twinkle in our eye? and it is noteworthy that a freshman congresswoman could walk away with this kind of a prize, certainly there will be competition to have that golden turkey passed around. and i appreciate your joining us tonight. and we have some other distinguished guests, my good friend, congressman walberg, i'm going to ask you you'd like to join us. we're talking a little bit, first of all, a big picture about how much money there is in the entitlements, the trouble with trying to balance the budget and also we've talked about jobs and how jobs relate to a government that's out of control, has forgotten they're supposed to be servants and are just running mad, making red tape which is again excess overhead for the businesses and kills jobs. but, please, join us with your unique perspective. mr. walberg: i appreciate my colleague from missouri, i appreciate you holding this time

this evening as we with can talk about those things that impact -- we can talk about those things that impact our whole way of life in the united states. i'm sure we understand here on the floor this evening the impact of what our framers and founders had in mind of a limited government, a government that believe very clearly that free people, with the opportunity to be creative and use the resources that they have, could indeed make a life that was filled with happiness in their per suit, that involved -- pursuit, that involved property and all that went with it. as the subcommittee chairman for workplace production and workers' production, i've had the opportunity to look at some things that are coming up right now that are being proposed as workplace safety standards. and this goes into cost issues that are huge regulatory costs, but also costs that ultimately reduce jobs and opportunity. one such regulatory issue

related to the noise regulation being proposed by osha. unfortunately that has been pulled for the time being, it came, it was pulled a couple of days after we introduced the fact that we were going to hold hearings on it. continue to hold hearings. we found out in the process that noise standards and all of us here would say that a worker ought to be safe, reasonably speaking, in their workplace, i worked at the u.s. steel southworks shortly after high school, worked in the furnace division. i worked on the mold platform, worked in the hooker shack was which -- which was lifting and holding pig iron, and a number of other things. i had reasonable expectation to be safe. including using hearing protection that involved either ear muffs or ear plugs. what this new standard would have required would not have been simply putting ear plugs into employees, that would meet the standard, or ear muffs, but it would have required

businesses to purchase machines that weren't only guarded or she rouded safely for hearing protection -- shrouded safely for hearing protection but machines that would be reduced to the noise standard to a point that, as we looked at it most carefully, weren't even machines made yet. they hadn't been produced. so we're talking about businesses that want to employ people that increase the economy, because you and i both know that the economy is produced in the private sector, not in the public sector, that the private sector entrepreneur, the taker of risk, produced an idea, comes up with it, ultimately hires employees to carry out the job and then we put reasonable regulations to make sure that those employees are safe, that the hearing is protected as well, but we don't say to the employer, you must buy a machine that isn't even produced yet, that isn't made yet, in order to protect -- mr. akin: i really appreciate your example. that's the trouble with these things.

it's not that maybe there shouldn't be some workplace safety rules, but these things have just gone beyond the realm of what even makes sense. i have even greater respect for you now. i've also worked in the steel mill and the noisy place at our steel mill was the pipe shop where they were loading the pipe. and you take a whole big bundle of pipe and drop it or hit it against something, and, boy, does it make a racket. they had ear protections and things in the pipe mill there. certainly businesses know that that's necessary to do that. but when you start loading that kind of extreme red tape and regulations on a business, the business has to use their money to pay for that and they can't hire employees. so red tape, first of all taxes, red tape, those are job killers. i think as i recall, i think it was a gentleman last week that shared, somebody that had a dry cleaning facility, and they

found something like a spoonful of some water underneath a concrete slab that had a small amount of cleaning fluid, i guess carbon in the water or something. and they had to do like a $60,000 remediation which for a simple dry cleaner just about took every penny that the owners had out of their bank, because of one teaspoon full with some water that had a little bit of, you know, the cleaner fluid they use on people's clothes. and that's what we're talking about. this is just bizarre kinds of stuff. we have dr. boustany from louisiana here and i think he was going to share with us for a minute and, congressman walberg, we'll come back to you. congressman walberg is from michigan. and a great member of the caucus. and, doctor, please. mr. boustany: thank you. i thank my friend from missouri for giving me time to speak here. you know, as we talk about american competitiveness and growing jobs, private sector jobs in this country, coming off

the heels of this recession where we still have high unemployment, there's two aspects to it. one is cutting back on government spending as you've already suggested with the pie chart you have there, we have to get our debt under control, this is imperative because it's going to strangle private investment in the form of higher taxes on the american people. but the other side of this is the growth side of the equation. stimulating economic growth. and if you look at how to do that, we want economic growth in the private sector, which will help spur job growth, the way we have to do that is we have to look at an energy strategy for the united states, because so much of what we do depends on cheap, affordable energy to fuel our plants, our factories, transportation, you name it. so it's critical that we have an energy strategy for the country. which we don't have. and we never have had one. in fact, what you're seeing now,

instead of the lack of an energy strategy, we're actually seeing energy proposals that are dert mental to the country -- detrimental to the country, that are being proposed by this administration. let me list what's going on. first of all, the moratorium on drilling for american energy in the gulf of mexico has been in place since may. this is killing jobs back home in louisiana, along the gulf coast, but it's also hurting our energy security in this country. as we lose these jobs, these are highly skilled workers, as they leave this industry and go to find other jobs and move, you cannot turn that light switchback on and get that kind of skill back on these platforms. that's number one. so as -- mr. akin: wait just a minute. just on the surface of what you're saying, if somebody were really to listen to what you're saying, it sounds like insanity. because here's what my thinking would be. you're saying that we've got all

this unrest in the middle east which threatens the oil production there, which increases the cost of middle eastern oil, so we pay them even more to countries that don't like us and use the money for advancing terrorist kinds of causes and we have oil right under our feet and we're saying, no, you can't drill for that stuff, and gasoline is $3 and something a gallon and we're not even drilling for the silly oil that we've got. let me add one thing that gets me even more hard up and that is, you go north, north of louisiana, i mean, where it's cold, ok? we're talking out in the ocean, outside alaska, and you've got foreign countries that are drilling on what is basically our coastal plain and they're drilling for oil. and here we are paying $3 something and we're not drilling

for any of this stuff. i mean, isn't this weird? mr. boustany: we have basically shut down our production in the gulf of mexico and it's a boneheaded policy to do that. but not only that, the administration in its budget proposal is now proposing nearly $50 billion in new taxes on small, independent oil and gas producing companies. now, that's going to put a lot of these guys out of business. they can't cash flow and they do a lot of the work on the continental shelf and in shallow water areas and also onshore production. in oil and gas. and there's a distinction between oil and gas. mr. akin: here we are again. i started just a little while ago, we talked about, if you want to kill jobs, first of all, tax small businesses, tax them so much they can't run their business or at least chase people out of them so there goes the jobs. the second thing you do is bury them in red tape. now we're coming back to what you're saying is, the very people we should want to be

working and drilling for oil for us, we're going to tax them out of existence? isn't that ridiculous? mr. boustany: it's ridiculous. and these taxes are indiscriminant. they hit oil companies, you know, those drilling for oil, but also natural gas and even our friends on the other side of the aisle will admit that natural gas usage is a very important transition strategy as we look at our energy needs going into the future. whether transportation fuel, electricity generation. those taxes proposed by the administration will put a lot of these gas companies out of business and keep in mind, 97% of the gas used -- natural gas used in this country is produced here in this country by these small companies. . a given rig will employ 65 people on one rig. so a company that has, let's say, they have to cut back 50 rigs, do the math. you're talking 3,000-plus jobs.

these are -- mr. akin: the very thing we should be encouraging because we're so dependent on foreign oil. mr. boustany: they're private sector jobs and good paying jobs and help promote critical energy. and everything counters our energy policy and hurts the national security as well. i'm worried about the situation in the country of orman and straight across the straight of hormuz and if the strait were to shut down because of unrest in oman because of the iranian mischief we could see oil prices spike up to $400 a barrel and will hurt our rice farmers back home trying to export rice and grow rice for

domestic consumption. it will hurt our chemical manufacturing. and speaking of the natural gas piece -- mr. akin: he maybe i could stop because i want to hit you with a g-wiz statistic because i'm kind of an old geezer and been here a while and watched voting patterns. here's something that might be interesting to you. and i tell this to some of my constituents back home. if i were to say the republicans and democrats in the house are divided on the abortion issue, people would go, no big surprise. i think it's interesting that if you look back over the years, at least the 10 years i've been here, the two parties are more divided on developing american energy than they are on the abortion subject. and i find that just amazing to me because it seems so obvious that we're still using gasoline in cars, until we get away from that, we need to be trying to produce our own gasoline. we have very large reserves of oil that we could be drilling,

and my understanding is on many, many of those locations where we could drill and hope to find oil, there are environmental lawsuits blocking drilling in all these different locations where we could legally drill, not mentioning anwr which is offbounds to us right now and now the regulations in the gulf which, again, i don't have any problem with people wanting to say hey, we need to see what went wrong with the oil spill, how do we make sure we get a very deep, high pressure situation that we've got the proper devices to stop that up if we need to. but just to basic loy shut down and tax everybody, this is just bizarre. mr. boustany, it is bizarre and again, americans want to compete and we know if given the opportunity to compete we can win in the global economy and we've got to have energy production in this country to allow our companies to compete. now, let me point out something. one of the biggest areas of

exports for the united states are chemicals, petrachemicals and fertilizer produced here, manufactured here in the united states. mr. akin: manufactured with? mr. boustany: natural gas and petroleum products. and if you shut down our natural gas production, the companies which on a basis of price we can compete because we have cheap natural gas in this country around the world. our companies are competitive. mr. akin: you haven't mentioned the number of supplys found under pennsylvania. that's an incredible find. mr. boustany: we know we have the world's largest reserves in coal, we have potentially the largest reserves in the world of natural gas here in the united states and some argue the estimates on oil are vastly underestimated because of two things, one, the shale oil that's available that's currently offlimits because of

environmental policies, and secondly on the east coast and west coast, outer continental shelf area, we don't have accurate seismic information so when they say we only have 3% of the world's reserves, that's an inaccurate figure. that's not been thoroughly looked at with moderate seismic activities. but our companies that manufacture these chemicals and fertilizer have a competitive advantage because of the low price of natural gas in this country. if we tax it, as this administration is proposing, it will make us less competitive, our exports will go down and will be counter to what the president wants to do by expanding exports and makes no sense whatsoever. mr. akin: what you're getting into, doctor, is something i wanted to talk a little bit about tonight and that is the assumption you can go taxing and taxing and we always talk about we're going to tax the rich guy and think you can get away with that without consequences because it seems

to me there's a disconnect with the current administration, and the democrats as well policywise because they talk about the fact they want jobs but then destroy the companies that create the jobs. and you can't kill the company if you want jobs because the company is the one that hires people and they seem to miss that connection in there. i'd like to go back to my good friend from michigan. i had to check to make sure and give you a chance to jump in but talk about taxes and how it is we can deal with the tough problems budgetwise and at least one part of that which is the proper tax policy. mr. wahlberg: i think you're leading into the key point here. because bottom line, when you talk about entitlement spending, those entitlement

programs we've come to expect in the united states, whether it be medicaid, medicare, social security, and most of us, at least in this room tonight have paid into social security a long time. mr. akin: let's not get personal about age here. mr. walberg: it's not a voluntary tax and in a couple short years i will be capable of receiving that myself. i've not had a choice to do that and yet the only way that we can see those entitlement programs continue, at least if we did it right, is have an economy that's growing, have people that are employed, that are paying into the swilingtsment programs, the taxes that are there, even if we don't talk about any alternative way for younger employees coming down the road in the future, we still have to have the ability to put dollars in. that comes from having a job. and so when we go back to what dr. boustany was talking about on the issue of energy, when you talk about the regulatory concerns that i expressed that are destroying jobs, i go back

to my own home state of michigan, my own district, the seventh district, michigan who led the nation for four straight years on employment and a state known for its manufacturing, its auto industry, always having jobs, a high standard of living and as a result of government growing too large, too strong, too intrusive and spending too much and taxing too much, we've destroyed the economy of michigan and now the new administration comes in and has to go through almost insurmountable odds to try to restore an economy that has jobs so they can pay into this. mr. akin: let me ask you whether this gets under your skin, because i'm on the budget committee. but i hear all the time my democrat colleagues are saying the recovery is fragile, therefore don't you go cutting any of this government spending. i'm just thinking, wow. because i totally don't see it that way at all. when you have a government that's busy spending money

trying to regulate a milk spill in a barn, you have a government that's wanting to talk about rogue dust that comes off of a farm when you're basically running a combine through a row of corn, and you've got a government with duplication after duplication and we're talking about let's cut just some of the edge of this stuff and they're saying careful, don't destroy a fragile economy. hey, the economy is fragile because they're doing everything wrong to it. mr. walberg: everything wrong, trying to destroy it. mr. akin: and ronald reagan said we're buying too much government. go ahead. i didn't mean to get off. mr. walberg: i assumed i'd get you into a rant on that because i know you're passionate about that. it's absolutely true. i can show you from experience in michigan, as we went through this type of downturn back in the 1980's, too large government, increase taxation, increase spending for all sorts of programs. we ran businesses out of the

state. we turned that around in the 1990e's and cut taxes 26 times and right-sided government and put work-fare in place of welfare and encouraged businesses to thrive and grow and what happened? by reducing taxes and cutting spending the economy grew and more revenue came in and the government had to control itself from spending those revenues from less taxes but still increase revenue because people were working, they were spending, they were saving, they were investing and taking care of themselves. lo and behold, the american people with their own intellect and own intelligence and own creativity began to grow an economy that made things right for themselves and then they had choice, they had opportunity. they could be creative, they could build new machines. they could build machines that met the noise standards that were presently available as opposed to saying we're going to create jobs by saying you can't have this noise standard here and you can't take care of it with an earplug or an earmuff, you're going to have

to produce a machine that isn't there. so look what we're doing. and my good colleague, i have a letter from osha that says that was part of economic development plan to encourage the development of new machines that would meet these noise standards so that then you would have new jobs. well, wait a second, the people that would produce those and more importantly the people that would buy those machines could not do that because they couldn't afford it. so here's big government again with its own ideas that ultimately destroys an economy and you get into entitlements. mr. akin: you just talked about an example from the great state of michigan. and just hearing you talk about it made me feel good. it's america on the move again. it's individual citizens taking risks, going out there, working hard, making a good living, and then because of the things they've done, other people get better jobs and they make a better living, and everybody does better. i mean, you can't -- you cannot ignore the fact that the standard of living that we

enjoy in america is because a whole lot of people can be free, free to succeed or free to fail. but it's called free enterprise. now, let me give you another example that occurred when i was a congressman here, and i think the beginning of when you were, and that was that bush, the second bush, g.w. bush, copied the example of j.f.k. and ronald reagan. and both of those presidents understood that when the government cuts taxes in the right way, it actually gets the economy going. in fact, what happens when you cut taxes the right way, the government actually gets more revenue. now that sounds weird. let me try to explain this. i've done it a couple times before. tell me if it makes sense. how is it a government can cut taxes and get more revenue in? well, think about it. let's say you're king for a whole year and the only thing you can tax is a loaf of bread

and you start thinking if i put a penny tax on that loaf of bread, i can figure out how much bread people are eating and figure out how much i get for tax revenue. then you think hey, how about i put $10 tax on every loaf of bread but then you think maybe people wouldn't buy any bread. you start to think there's probably an optimum point you can put some tax on the bread, people still would be eating bread but you'd get your most revenue. that's what goes on. here's an example, may of 2003, were you here in congressmen? mr. walberg: i was not. mr. akin: you were thinking about it perhaps? mr. walberg: i was thinking about it. mr. akin: good for you. in may of 2003 we cut two taxes, not popular, it was capital gains, dividends and death tax. i don't know if you're a rich guy if you're dead. but anyway, we're going to tax death, we tax everything else, so why not that? we cut capital gains dividends and death taxes at this time, right here. i've got three charts and it shows what happened.

this is job creation before and after the tax relief. this is some of the taxes we extended into this year. this is the lines that go down are job loss by months and the lines that go up are job gains. so what you have right here, that's the tax relief that goes into effect and take a look at the more lines coming up over here. that's really pretty substantial and pretty interesting, whereas these you're losing he -- so this tax appears to have had a good effect. let's check it not on just job creation -- mr. walberg: the tax cuts. it gave incentive. mr. akin: the tax cuts go into effect here, this line, this is the g.d.p., and it's actually losing -- or gaining. here's 1.1%. after the tax cuts it jumps to 3.5% and this is a lot stronger economy. the economy seems to do better when you allow business people

to take the money, put it in their business, create jobs, there's more people working, more tax revenue comes in. well, does more tax -- wait a minute, you cut taxes and that means your revenue is going to go down? let's see what happened to revenue. here's the story. here's the tax cut right here. the revenue has been going down, they've cut the taxes in four straight years of increase in revenue. so what's happening there is that actually if you do the right kind of tax cut, just as you say you get the free enterprise system working, and you can turn the economy around. j.f.k. understood that. he did it. it worked for him. ronald reagan did it. they said oh, trickle down economics and all this kind of stuff, but it worked. in fact, here's another chart. . this is the tax rate op the most wealthy people. it started at 90%, it's come down. you notice the tax on the

wealthy people come down, the amount of federal revenues goes up. that's weird. why would that snb it's the same principle. you can over-- why would be that -- why would that snb it's the same principle. you're absolutely right. you give incentive to people to use their own resources, with american exceptionalism, and let the market forces work, everybody benefits. and we started out tonight talking about the overall fiscal problem we have in america and the fact that it's really, it's really unique. this is a pretty scary situation that america's in. and the solution, as reagan reagan said, the solution is simple but it's not easy. and the solution really comes in two sides. the first is, we have to be cutting all of what the government is spending, we have to do some cuts, but on the other hand, what we have to do

is selectively do the tax cuts to allow the economy to really get back in a strong recovery. the one thing i agree with that the democrats are saying is that the recovery is fragile. i think they picked that up from bernanke, but the secretary, but i think it is. i think it's fragile because of the fact we've still got the problem of excessive taxes, excessive red tape and a whole lot of uncertainty in the markets. mr. walberg: and a lot of spending. mr. akin: the first thing is we've got to cut taxes but we tremendously have to cut the overhead and the thing here, and i think the public is becoming aware of this fact, we can't make it by cutting defense and nondefense discretionary. that was the budget we were doing two weeks ago on the floor. we cut $100 billion out of that. if you knee what the real problem is, as we talked about earlier, the total of these entitlements plus debt service is $2.2 trillion. the federal revenue is $2.2

trillion. you can zero this and this out and you'd just barely have a balanced budget and that's not talking about the out years when it gets worse. so these areas must be dealt with. now, supposedly if you talk about changing -- changing anything with social security, medicare or medicaid, lightning will fall and you'll be struck dead politically. but the fact of the matter is we must deal with these. how we deal with them is one of those things that we need to have a conversation on it. but to do what the president did and submit the 2012 budget and not deal with these at all is being disingenuous. it's kicking the can down the road and ignoring this massive problem which is a little bit like that gorilla in the tent. i started, my dear friend from michigan, i started by talking about, and sometimes i think about this, what would it be like to be in the year 1850 and be a congressman or a senator and you have this huge issue of

slavery and we didn't deal with it? we just ignored it and then we got slammed by the civil war. and my question is, are we as americans going to deal with the fact that our entitlements are using -- debt service is using up the entire revenue of the country? i mean, that's not just a little bit of a budget problem. that says we have a fiscal crisis on our hands and we're responsible and our american citizens that elected us here expect us to deal with this problem. and the first way to deal with it is to at least acknowledge that we got the problem. mr. walberg: and i believe that more and more people, even those that are using the entitlements, social security, medicare, understand that. and are growing in their fear that unless we do something they indeed will be hurt. but i think that you and i together and many who are of like mind understand that we must do something but we can do

something that's better. and we can do something that assures people that they will have what they expect. mr. akin: that's exactly the point. mr. walberg: and we can do it the right way without the big government issues an getting down to that american exceptionalism that says, we can trust people to do for themselves if given the incentive and opportunity better than what big government can do. mr. akin: the point of the matter is there's people who are dependent on these programs, older people. and they're going to be in trouble if the wheels fall off this thing. so what we need to do is craft a solution that allows the older people that are on these programs to stay there and then as people become younger, give them alternatives and to have a transition so that you can get these costs under control. that is the way to manage a solution, everybody's got to suffer a little bit. but at least we're not allowing the quhole thing literally to crash, like some sort of a train off the edge of a cliff. mr. walberg: i think we give not necessarily the suffering idea, i think in doing something

that's credible and the right thing to do it gives people optimism. that the answer is here, it will take some tough decisions but ultimately the people who are in need will be taken care of. the other people with the great createtivity, the american exceptionalism that's there, will find ways to do it and do it better and ultimately greater opportunity for the future and that's optimism. mr. akin: and i think that is the thing that's so exciting because i don't think you're being a poll janna by saying what you just -- pollyanna by saying what you just said. we've been through as americans a lot of dicey situations. our own parents, known as the greatest generation, as they would say, it did their bit. my father was in europe and they fault world war ii. then there was the days when ronald reagan came to a discouraged nation and he said, america's got brighter days ahead and with that twinkle in his eye and he had such a way of

putting it, you know, that the solution is simple, but it's not easy. we have come to another one of those pivotal times in history where it is our responsibility to deal with a massive problem and not to ignore and try to pretend it doesn't exist and just try to lie to beam and let the government run a little longer until we're gone and then everything comes down in a big heap. that's not what the american public want of their leadership. and as long as you and i are kicking, my friend, we're going to stay here, we're going to talk about this. we're going to talk about the great days ahead for america and some of the different things that could possibly be. you know, we take a look at some of mees medical costs -- these medical costs, they're really busting the budget. maybe one of the things we need to do is say, hey, i think it was 1950, somebody calculated the cost of polio, that it cost us $1 trillion a year in america

today that polio costs. but they forgot something. we figured out a cure for polio. maybe it's time for us to target the most expensive diseases, things like diabetes or alzheimer's', things that are very big-ticket i'ms at the, and maybe that's part of the american exceptionalism, to leave the world a better place, to live our kids freer, not taxed into the dirt, to leave our economy the strongest of any in the world, that america could be a shining city on a hill, a light to the people around the world. that was the vision of our forefathers. why don't we grab a hold of that and say, hey, we have got way too much government than we can afford, let's turn loose the american people and let's not trust so much in government. i think that's the big question coming up. do we really want more government, more taxes, more spending, more debt? and less freedom? or do we want more freedom and a whole lot less government and

the government that's here to really be a servant to the people and not have the attitude that they know better than everybody else? don't you think that's what we want? mr. walberg: i think the people spoke in november. and i think that speech they gave to us, my good friend, is that we must take this opportunity, this is our point in time, this is our date with destiny, as it were. if we back off from tackling the big things, then we will not only lose there, but all of those little special things will be taken away as well. mr. akin: congressman walberg, with you and the other great people that work down here, and the american public, i believe we can do it and it's time for us to roll up our sleeves, let's get busy cutting, let's do the things the right way, design programs that work and not threaten people and let's move forward because there are brighter days ahead. thank you, mr. speaker, we yield back what little of our time is left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the

chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. jackson, for 30 minutes. mr. jackson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, let me express my appreciation to you and to the leadership of this congress for allowing me 30 minutes to speak to my constituents, but also to speak to the american people about the central issue that confronts our nation and this economic crisis. mr. speaker, the central issue that has confronted every congress, that remains unaddressed, for which i want to talk about tonight, is unemployment. the unemployment rate in our country is too high. the democratic message, job creation. and create jobs. i respect that message. republicans believe in tax cuts and tax breaks and probusiness perspective which many democrats support as well, and i believe that clearly economic growth is the path to job creation.

but for the unemployed in our nation, a very, very different category, the debate led by democrats and led by republicans in the congress of the united states all too often ignores people who are unemployed. unemployment is a very special category. every member of congress knows the numbers. but it's the american people who are feeling them. about 9% of the country is unemployed. based on the definition of unemployed that the bureau of labor statistics uses. but in communities like mine, it's around 15% and that's conservative. some communities as high as 30% unemployment. and so when democrats come to the floor of the congress and talk about job creation, for african-americans, for minorities and for women, when we hear that language, because we're usually the last hired and the first fired, job creation

isn't a message that touches my constituents. it's not a message that touches the long-term unemployed who find themselves in the ghettos and the trailer parks of our nation. so the question is, why democrats and republicans in congress both promoting growth, republicans promoting tax breaks and tax cuts and limited government as way to stimulate the economy, democrats focusing on job creation as a way to stimulate the economy, which might include reasonable spending and deficit reduction measures, why in the midst of our conversation led by republicans in the ma jort and democrats, unemployed americans continue to grow? there's this huge category that democrats are not speaking to and republicans are not speaking to, but need to be addressed in order to strengthen our economy and change the present

direction. you see, mr. speaker, if we can provide a job for every american, if we can eliminate unemployment just like we eliminated slavery, if we can eliminate unemployment just like as a nation we are trying to eliminate discrimination against women and against the disabled and against gays and lesbians of our nation, if we can eliminate unemployment, the way our system is actually set up, if every american is working they pay into the system. and if they're paying into the system it pays for future scombren rationings of americans -- future generations of americans to take advantage of the entitlement programs that my colleagues who just left the floor were talking about. but if there's high unemployment in any given generation it profoundly impacts the kinds of resources that are available for the federal government and local government to handle basic programs that keep our nation strong in every succeeding generation for every american. mr. speaker, many americans have

been out of work for many months, they stopped looking for work. so even though they have no jobs, they are not counted as unemployed. over the last few months i've called on unemployed, underemployed and economically insecure americans to send me their resumes and their stories so that i can keep unemployment front and center before our government. unemployment, i did not say job creation, i did not say deficit reduction or tax reduction, to corporations, i said unemployment. that thing that president roosevelt talked about when he said, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. president roosevelt wasn't talking about the russian bear, he wasn't talking about nazis in germany, he wasn't talking about fascism in italy under mooselyny, he was talking about the deterioration of our national fiber and fabric from within.

unemployment. and that the time that he was delivering that speech, mr. speaker, i know that my chart here is probably inadequate for the c-span cameras, but the largest spike in our nation's history for unemployment, between 1930 and 1945, is during president roosevelt's administration. now, one would think that the goal would be in order to keep men content and women content in their homes, in their jobs and actually believing in our country, that we would be working collectively as democrats and republicans to eliminate the idea of unemployment as a potential factor in the life of the american people. . but no. we're talking about job creation and deficit reduction. and somehow we believe by moving the interest rate and the levers of our economy and corporations that rehave chosen to leave the united states and locate in foreign countries abroad, that somehow they are going to come back to america and provide us with enough work

for millions of americans who find themselves unemployed, underemployed, and out of work. so to demonstrate this shameful condition i've called on underemployed and unemployed and equally unsecure americans to send me their resumes. thousands have responded and sent their resumes to me at resumesforamerica@.gov. if we can end unemployment once and for all we can save social security without any cuts to social security. if we can end unemployment once and for all, we can take the entitlement programs off of the table. but there is very little focus on ending unemployment.

congress is focused on job creation. however, congress' efforts historically at job creation have gotten it probably at least about a c meanous in terms of what most economists actually believe congress has the power to create jobs. congress doesn't create jobs. the private sector creates jobs. congress can offer incentives for the private sector to create jobs, but congress cannot create jobs unless congress is going to hire everybody, which, mr. speaker, not necessarily a bad idea of congress hiring everybody, but that's another special order. i want to talk tonight, mr. speaker, about these americans who have been left behind, and at the conclusion of my remarks hopefully offer some insight in what i think could serve as a constructive part of a conversation about ending long-term unemployment for all americans. first i want to start with linda stable. linda wrote a letter to speaker

boehner and said, i'm a 63-year-old woman who has been laid off from my job in mid june of 2001. she got laid off her job she loved. every day i've spent time looking for work unsuccessfully. i'm a four-time breast cancer survivor and in december underwent my second mastectomy in three years. i have a small condo with a modest mortgage and sold my car last week to make ends meet. unless i'm able to find a part-time job in a few months i will join the ranks of the 99 -ers with an unsure future. will i lose my home? many americans face the frightening prospect, and i'm sure you received many communication such as mine but i hope you'll lend your support for extending benefits for the long-term unemployed, the emotional, physical, and psychological stress of day-to-day job hunting is painful and damaging beyond words. i begin each day with a hopeful outlook but at the end of the

day, restorative sleep is beyond my reach. i'm talented, have good skills, but time is running out. please won't you make jobs a priority. respectfully, linda stable. linda, i believe we should make jobs a priority and ending the shameful condition of unemployment ought to be a priority of this congress. for michael b. alexander, master of science and real estate management, master of urban design and management. hello, i recently left my job with florida to pursue an m.c.s. degree in august of 2008. i've been looking for work all over the united states actively since august of 2010 when i received my degree. i had four interviews and easily applied over 250 jobs between august and february. it is worth noting i have accrued a sizable amount of debt from all my education over the years and am currently unable to make my payments. the loans are continuing to

accrue interest and currently are in hardship deferment. i've had a pretty good life for some time now when i was working a few years ago, times were ok but when i returned to the u.s.a. after graduate school late last year, i was dispointed i tried to make life better by going back to school only to regret leaving my previous stable job in florida. i know my life is not as bad as some americans, but i'm now starting to feel hopeless. please keep me posted on the status of this campaign to collect resumes at resumes4america@mail dot house.gov. michael alexander has sent me his resume i hope to insert in the congressional record. mr. speaker, what about all of the men and women who valiantly and bravely serve our nation in afghanistan and iraq? many of whom came from communities where the jobless rate was high and sought not only an opportunity to serve

their nation which they have done valiantly, but after having served their nation are returning to the united states to find unprecedented unemployment in our country. after having served our nation, after having risked their lives, after having put the last full measure of their devotion on the line to protect our freedom, can this congress, will this congress not stop for a moment to guarantee them re munerabble work, worthy of the sacrifice they made for our nation or are they, too to join the long list of americans? are they to join the long list of americans who find their homes in foreclosure, who find themselves without health care or without the necessary benefits to provide for their future for their families and their loved ones? mr. speaker, this congress can do better. i've been unemployed, representative jackson, according to sharon inglima, since december of 2008, with

a.i.g. for 10 years. i read on the unemployment examiner you were looking for resumes from the 99-ers. i've been on 20 interviews in the two-plus years and i've not found a job. it's not because i'm lazy, mr. speaker, sharon inglima is looking. i've looked online, attended job fairs and meetings, i've contacted businesses and personal contacts, constantly looking for positions for me. i want and need to get back to work and have health care benefits. right now i'm on medicaid. i'm extremely professional and a hard worker. and like so many i can't believe this economy. our government needs to take us seriously and feel our pain. they also need to extend our unemployment benefits. if we can't print money for every country who needs money from us, why does our government leave us out in the dust? i am sure i feel as other 99-ers do, humiliated and depressed. it's tough for us to keep going

but we must. please stand up for us. i wrote senator schumer and gillibrand to support 589 and we need to pass it and if republicans want it paid for, please find the money. my resume is attached, thank you, sharon iglima who is writing concerning her job and the absence thereof in our economy. so, mr. speaker, we are at an impasse here. president of the united states, a close and dear friend of mine came before this congress most recently, i believe he mentioned the word job creation 31 times. he mentioned the word innovation i think 11, maybe 15 times and never mentioned unemployment one time, not one time. as if unemployment is not a factor in the lives of the american people. i come to the house floor and i hear democrats in one-minute speeches and five-minute speeches and hear republicans talk about austerity measures and why they need to cut the

budget and cut programs which by the way will lead states to cut budgets and cut programs. and guess what? there are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of americans who are going to wake up one of these days and guess what? there's going to be no federal program there for them. there's going to be no state programs there for them. as states pursue austerity measures. is there anyone concerned about that around here? that some americans are going to wake up one morning and there won't be a government for them either at the state level or federal level because a government that is of the people, by the people and for the people is supposed to be caring for the people? carol tomasetti, congressman jackson, i'm writing my story to be entered into the congressional record. i'm a 53-year-old, educated with a bachelor agree woman who worked her whole life. i have 20 years of human resources experience and worked

my whole life. i was laid off to my job at nurse finders due to the economy tanking and here i am 2 1/2 years later with no job and no prospects. i have sent thousands of resumes out and tried to network as much as possible to help me land something. i'm at the point where i feel my spirit is broken. i live in rochester, new york. need i say more? the economy here is so bad, that there are no opportunities. i've even started to redirect my efforts towards administrative and customer service positions. my unemployment ran out last week and my husband and i are in a panic mode. my husband worked at eastman kodak for 30 years and i was downsized 3 1/2 years ago because there's no manufacturing left here. he was out of work for all that time and has since gone back to work at a job he's much too overqualified for and is making half of what he was making at kodak. i'm ashamed that our standard of living has gone down to what it is. we own a home and we've not lived above our means. we pay our bills, we give back to our community, we live to

try to save for our retirement and buy what we have to and want to support our economy. we have never worked, now all of this is jeopardized because only one income in our home and we cannot meet our bills and commitments. we now have no health insurance because we can't afford it since the unemployment ran out. the company where my husband works does not offer it because they can't afford it. i cannot believe at our age we're in this situation and going from bad to worse. i'm not looking for any handouts, carol tomasetti is saying. i want to get back and work. i have a life. i need assistance until i can finally find a job. when are the politicians in this country going to finally start working for the american people and not themselves? you're all self serving. i don't believe you're doing what it takes to turn this country around. i have no confidence in any of you and i don't believe anything that is said. who are you to decide our lives

will be run and how they're going to be affected? maybe you should stop sending money to every other country in the world and start worrying about our own back yard. we need help now. that's carol j. tomasetti from rochester, new york. she sends her resume hoping, mr. speaker, she won't be ignored by the congress of the united states and you will accept it into the congressional record. how about annie mosley? i want to thank you so much for stepping up and speaking on behalf of the unemployed and not to bore you, in 2006 me and my husband moved into a home with $1,500 and were worth working. in july of 2008 my husband was arrested for domestic violence and spousal abuse that escalated on july 27. this is after my brother committed suicide, my mother had a severe stroke. i took care of my brother's funeral with the help of a state assistance fan and beautiful people i met in a long life journey in the tune hall home business and through it all in september of 2008 i

brought my mom to live with me because i refused to allow her to live in a nursing home. i worked in as well as visited homes for low-income people and destitute people and i brought my oldest daughter to live with me because even though we were not middle class and have no college fund she was spellman or georgia state majoring in pediatric medicine in her future, a dream she's had since the age of 4. i filed bankruptcy in january of 2009 to save my home and i lost my job in 2009 and was forced out of bankruptcy in april of 2010. my home was saved again in july of 2010 due to the unethical practices of the bank of america who took over countrywide. and by my right, should i lose my home because i don't have enough to pay an $1,800 mortgage, mr. speaker? i am divorced and unemployed but god made a promise to me about my home and taking care of my mom and i'm standing on those but here's my resume and i thank you again. that's from annie mosley. she represents thousands of americans who are taking care

of their families and their loved ones and bringing their children back home because there are no resources available in our economy to make sure she gets home. while we're sitting around here in congress passing bills that aren't going anywhere, we have yet to address the fundamental issue of unemployment that confronts all americans. i want to deviate from the resumes for a moment and talk about something that i think is at stake here. i've been doing a also research, mr. speaker, as i've been lamenting upon reading the resumes of unemployed americans all over our country, and it's not just enough to complain about what's going wrong here. something has to happen. something is profoundly wrong in our democracy, in our republic that needs to be fixed. i heard the previous speakers talk about our founding fathers and how they ultimately outlawed slavery in the passage of the 13th amendment to the constitution after abraham lincoln issued the emancipation

proclamation in 1863, and it occurred to me, mr. speaker, that from 1619 when the first slaves arrived in our country to 1776, the greatest capitalist in the history of our world lived. they were the colonists and the traders, those who took the greatest risks to travel across oceans to land here on the shores of america. they were capitalists, they believed in trading beans and corn and gold and natural resources and they were seeking a new life when they came to the united states of america, or came to these shores, more accurately stated. . after the decision of 1774 and the reaction in the colonies that led to the declaration of independence in 1776 and those famous words, all men are created equal, the founders of

this republic, the founders of this republic, had an opportunity to say no to government, no need for government. we don't need a federal government, we no longer have the crown pursuing us, we're going to win and we've won the revolutionary war, we don't need government. that was their choice. but instead, mr. speaker, you know what they did? they chose government. they said that the american enterprise that we have been engaged in for a century and a half before the declaration of independence is an enterprise that we need to continue. that freedom system, that open system that allows bartering and trade, that allows activity, that allows potential economic growth. now, however narrow, in their thinking, there was full employment at that time for white male land owners. the white woman, you couldn't vote, if you were african-american, obviously you were in a condition of slavery. but for the architects of the republic who protected the right

to vote for white male land owners, clearly all the white male land owners were doing just fine, they had full employment. full employment. so the struggle from the founding of this country all the way to the 13th amendment was about amending that which they established so that more americans, mr. speaker, could participate in the american enterprise. i asked congressional research service the other day, how many jobs are tied to the first amendment? that amendment added to the constitution in 1791 by the founders of our republic. you know what they told me? congressman, it is impossible to calculate how many jobs are tied to the first amendment. i said, impossible to calculate? i said, why? he said, because to be an american is tied to the first amendment. he said, congressman, you must understand, which i did, that

all corporate activity in america is first amendment activity. look at the jobs that come from the first amendment. "washington post," "washington times." "new york post," "new york times," "chicago tribune," "chicago sun times" and all of the radio stations, first amendments. abc, nbc, cbs, c-span, all of the jobs, first amendment. the magazines, first amendment. ipods, iphones, applications, first amendment. times square, first amendment activity. advertising, the super bowl, first amendment activity. all of these jobs, the original capitalist who came to the conclusion that this was worth protecting in our constitution, established in the freedom system, the greatest jobs program in our nation's history. they called it freedom of

speech. and in that same amendment they included freedom of religion. think about the jobs tied to 501-c-3, 501-c-5's. all of that first amendment activity. all charitable giving, all foundation activity, all tied to first amendment activity. so, the greatest jobs program that the founding fathers bequeathed to us is the first amendment. now, tell me why, as we reflect upon the conclusion of african-american history month, and as someone who is in congress today as a result of the nation's struggle to make our country better, a unique group of people in the constitution whose freedom came from the constitution, why we should not, with high unemployment, look to our constitution for the answer. mr. speaker, i believe that the answer to long-term unemployment is actually in the constitution

of the united states. well, let me say that a little differently. it's not in the constitution of the united states. it should be in the constitution of the united states and one of these days we're going to get there. but i want to bring to the house's attention an important speech delivered by our president, franklin dell nor roosevelt. president roosevelt said, on january 11, 1944, from that microphone and that platform, it is our duty now to begin to lay plans and determine the strategy for winning a lasting peace and the establishment of an american standard of living higher than ever known before. he says, we cannot be content, no matter how high the general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people, whether it be 1/3, 1/5 or 1/10 is ill fed, ill clothed, ill housed and insecure. this republic had at its begin and grew to its present strength

under the protection of certain rights, among them, freedom of speech, even roosevelt is acknowledging that 50% of all jobs in 1944 come from freedom of speech. freedom of worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. they were all right, mr. roosevelt says, to life and liberty. as a nation, he continues, has grown in stature, however, as our industrial economy has expanded, these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. we have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. necessary to us men, our president says, are not free men. people who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. and in these economic truths, we've come to accept them as

self-evident. we've come to accept, so to speak, a second bill of rights under which a new basis of prosperity can be established for all, regardless of station, race or creed. so what does roosevelt do? the only president who's ever had to confront unemployment at the level that we are confronting it right now, you know what he does, mr. speaker? he turns to the constitution of the united states answered says, these are the things we need to add. if the first amendment can guarantee us 51% of all jobs and from it can come ipods and laptops and the internet and unprecedented growth, we need to add to the constitution the right to a family to have a decent home. what would that do for home construction in this nation? what would that do for millions of unemployed people? he says, we need to add to the constitution the right to medical care. how many doctors would such a right create? he says, we need to add to the constitution of the united states the right to a decent

education for every american. how many schools would such a right build from main to california? -- maine to california? how many people would be put to work building roofs and designing classrooms and providing every student with an ipod and a laptop? how many ghettos will actually be touched by such an amendment? in fact, very little that we pass in the congress of the united states even touches the long-term unemployed. only thing that touch it's them that this congress has access to that can toolly change their station in life is the constitution of the united states. so roosevelt concludes, after this war is won, talking about world war ii, we must be prepared to move forward, he says, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of happiness and well-being, america's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar

rights have been carried into practice, mr. speaker, by our citizens. well, mr. speaker, that 50, 60, 70 years ago and here we are today trying to pass legislation, talking about austerity and government, rather than taking the advice from the greatest capitalist in the history of our world who set our freedom system in motion in 1776. that freedom system is responsible for the present america. mr. speaker, there is an even greater america that's in front of us. it's the america that adds to our founding document these basic rights. not at one time, but one at a time. and the way out of this economic and fiscal disaster that our country confronts isn't to cut the poor and to leave them on the streets, it isn't to ignore unemployed people. the way to change this crisis is to give the american people one more reason to believe in america again. that 308 million people can

coalesce, wipe out unemployment once and for all, rebuild our union, strengthen it and change the direction of america forever. i thank the speaker and i thank the american people for this time. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record on the subject of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jackson: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's an honor and privilege to address you here on the floor of the house and i would say after listening to the presentation from my colleague from illinois, it's been a little while since i've heard that and i'm glad to hear the delivery you gave tonight. a little more time here on the floor would be good for this whole congress and i appreciate the reference to our founding fathers and the years in the earlier foundation of our country, the principles we agree

on. and so i'm happy to be here and i came here to speak about some subject matter, mr. speaker, that i think is important that you turn your ear to and that the members of this congress turn their ear to and that the people in the united states do the same thing. we are in very dramatic times in the history of this country. and they encompassed quite a continuum of a ride that we've been on. to go back and capture some of that, to flame the -- frame the present moment that we're in, i take us back to a time, let's say back to a time in 1995. in 1995, shortly after republicans won the majority for the first time in 40 years in this house of representatives, and there was a real test that took place. there was a test that took place on the determination, on the part of the new majority after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness so to speak, that had

to determine that they wanted to bring this budget under control. they wanted to cut spending and put us on a path to balancing the budget. and that was initiated in 1995 with a real determination, also with the benefit of having a majority that works in cooperation with the united states senate. and that determination to balance the budget brought about a challenge from president clinton, a number of vetoes on the part of president clinton that brought down the shutdown of the federal government. and i remember those years. i was not in government at the time. i was full time owner of the construction company that i formed in 1975 that continues to this day. and as i watched this in the news and i watched the debate on c-span, i was inspired by the leads that are we had, the statesmen that we had, that stood and laid out the financial circumstances that we were in and the necessity to get federal government spending under control and the plan to bring forth a balanced budget.

and while this government was shut down, because of the vetoes of president clinton, and my recollection is that it was over a $300 billion proposed cut in medicare that was the crux of this matter, where the whole issue pivoted on it. and the nation watched as there were threats that there were parts of the federal government that wouldn't provide, be providings, and others were scared that they'd lose theirs, that social security checks wouldn't be coming in on time, etc. the american public began to royal and boil and rise up and push back. and over a period of time, i don't think at the fault of the members of the house of representatives, but by the circumstances of life and time, the public began to have a higher level of anxiety about what would happen if the federal government continued with the shutdown process that they were in. and at a certain point there was a request made for a unanimous consent agreement to go ahead and approve the funding in the

senate side. when that happened and the senate passed a unanimous consent agreement, it washed over the house here and the majority in the house was compelled to accept what had been delivered from the senate on that day. it was a sad day for me, as a businessman and a father and a person that was working to make my little part of the world as good as i could, i was disappointed that this congress couldn't hold the line on spending, couldn't hold the line on this growth in government. and i believed that, until i understood it from this perspective of standing here on the floor, mr. speaker, that the house had let us down. today i think it's a little bit different equation. i think they did as much as they could have done and under the circumstances, because of the agreement in the senate, the house didn't have much choice. but to concede to the push that came from the senate. but here's the point that i learned on that day and i stand on at this day, mr. speaker, that's this -- there was not a dime that the federal government

can spend that's not agreed to by the house of representatives. we start the spending, we start the taxes and if we say no it won't be spent. which means that if we hold our ground here, we can shut off the spending to anything that we choose to shut off. that's the way it's designed to be by the founding fathers that were referenced by the gentleman from illinois a little earlier, that's what the constitution says and by the way it's our obligation because we're the closest to the people. every two years we're up for election or re-election and if this house is going to change hands it can change hands within a two-year period of time. it's a 24-24/7 campaign meaning 24 months of 24 hours of day, seven days a week, it goes on in perpetual campaign mode because we're always up for re-election. and that means that the house here is more responsive and more sensitive to the people than the senate, which has a six-year ex election span of time and they

can put up a contentious vote, one that runs against the will of their constituents in the first couple of years or three or four years of their term and trust that the people might forget about it by the time they're up for re-election. not so in the house, what we do here, people are not going forget about and they should not. i want us to be accountable all the time and want a public that has a long memory and one that's very astute and very well informed and very well engaged. . we've been watching a populist that's been fitting that mold more and more. we watched as the tea party groups across the country have brought themselves forward and filled up the town squares and filled up the town hall meetings and surrounded this capitol, physically surrounded the united states capitol i believe for the first time in the history of america, we couldn't put a helicopter up there and take a picture because of air security concerns, but i walked around this building and i saw americans here surrounding the capitol, yes, holding hands,

but not just a human chain around the capitol, a human doughnut around the capitol, six and eight-people deep around the capitol, no thin spots in it and thousands of people in the corners that weren't part of the human doughnut around the capitol and they came here to say keep your hands off our health care and we reject obamacare and we want no part of it. it went on for days and days, people that wouldn't leave these capitol grounds. and finally on that sad day last march, when obamacare finally passed with all the legislative shenanigans that enabled that to happen, and they were considerable and they were unprecedented, mr. speaker, when it finally passed, the people around here put up a groan not necessarily of despair but agony because they'd seen american liberty ripped out by its roots and taken over our bodies nationalized by the federal government.

our health care, the federal government taking over our bodies, nationalizing our body and our skins and everything inside it and putting a 10% tax on the outside if you go to the tanning salon. that's what happened to obamacare, a nationalization of our -- the second most sovereign thing we have, the first most sovereign thing we have is our soul, the second most sovereign thing we have is our body, our skin, everything inside it, our health. and in the united states of america, we must have the right to manage our health to the maximum of our ability and not have the federal government diminish the options, take away the numbers of insurance policies we might buy or diminish the health care providers that are out there and put this in a one-size fits all, that's what obamacare did. and what it does if we continue to let it exist. but the circumstances of the government shutdown in 1995 were within an economic environment that brought us to

where we are today. and we should understand what that is, mr. speaker. we should know that during that period -- excuse me. during that period of time there was a dot-com bubble, this was an unnatural growth in the economy that was brought about because we had learned how to store and transfer information faster and more efficiently and effectively than ever before, and so there were millions of americans that were investing in these dot-com companies that were involved in the technological era in this modern dot-com era and they were investing because we could store and transfer information more effectively than ever before and they were investing in our ability to store and transfer but not adjusting it to the necessity that information and information transfer, manipulation ability helps our economy only to the extent that we can use it to provide a gooder service more effectively than before, to produce efficiencies in our

economy. and we found a lot of ways over those last 15, 16 years to produce more efficiencies because of the technology that's developed, but a lot of dot-com companies went under because they didn't have that -- they dwnt have that substance to add to the value of our overall economy. it isn't enough just to be able to store and transfer information better than ever before, you have to store and transfer it and help the efficiency so companies can provide profitability. that was the only thing other than if you could market this information for recreational purposes. the other component. only two. so this dot-com bubble grew out of an overexuberance, on a natural exuberance that came from an optimism we were going to take this economy some place it had never been before and that bubble was bound to burst and i think it would have burst on its own but there was a lawsuit filed against microsoft which lanced the bubble. the dot-com bubble burst and as

it burst, like a blister on your skin, it settles down into the hollow place underneath it and there's a dip in the economy. and i believe there was a concerted effort at that point to fill this hole created by the bursting of the dot-com bubble with unnaturally low interest rates and long-term mortgages that would allow people to build or buy houses that they otherwise couldn't have afforded and it created a housing bubble. so if you think of a dot-com bubble that burst, that when it collapsed it went into a trough, mr. speaker, and that trough was thought to be filled by an unnatural bubble of the housing boom which was created, and a housing boom that was in the business -- that was in the process of unfolding and i should say stretching itself to its max while president bush was elected in 2000, and the 2001 september 11 attacks came on our financial centers and

its assault on america, so we saw -- that all came with this transition of the bursting of the dot-com bubble, the growth of the unnatural housing bubble, the assault on the united states on september 11 of 2001 on our financial centers and the attack on the american economy and that was coupled with all the spending we needed to do to go to war in afghanistan, subsequently in iraq, and in the middle of all of that we spent billions on standing up, the t.s.a. and all the other security provisions we put in place to make sure america could be protected from more and more attacks from al qaeda. all of this going against our economy. and within all of that, there was also the passage of in child left behind which took more money and others that were driven by the bush administration, and all this

while we're at war. if i add this up, it's not a very good formula for a balanced budget. we had that balanced budget in the late 1990's and rolling into the year 2000. when i came into this congress, elected in 2002 and sworn in here in january of 2003, and i came down here and said to the chairman of the budget committee, where's our balanced budget, he said to me we can't balance the budget, it's not possible to balance the budget and you'll not have a balanced budget to vote on. i went back to my office, mr. speaker, and i began to put together a budget that would balance, and my green staff was tasked with the job of putting together a budget we could offer that would be balanced. we didn't get it completed. at that time it was about a $2.7 trillion budget and to try to rewrite that in a balanced fashion as a freshman in congress with a staff that's not at that point yet experienced was a very, very difficult task. and i got to the point where i

wasn't confident enough to offer it and i wish now looking back on it, that i would have offered a balanced budget and i wished every year i would have offered balanced budget and what we would have seen happen is the red ink we're we have is getting bigger and bigger and the american people have not been informed as to how difficult it is to bring this budget to a balance. so one of the important components of offering a budget that balances in this year, it tells us how big the problem is and it's been getting bigger and bigger and bigger. and i stood here and sat in the chamber and listened to the debate and engaged in it and listened to the 30-something group night after night, they would come down on the floor and make the argument, we just put them in charge, if they would just have the gavels, they would fix this country. so eventually over time, the republicans lost the majority, the democrats won the majority in 2006, nancy pelosi came in as speaker and now they had what they wanted, they were going to fix this country, and

they did all right. they began to take that rather minor deficit and turn it into a huge deficit, and they began to make energy more expensive and take the prospects of success in america down instead of up. they were working on their vision of america which is transfer payments, tax the rich, transfer those payments to other people that aren't as fortunate, or i should say not as productive, they may not be as fortunate. while this is going on, the deficit was growing, a dependency class was growing and that's what was going on. there was a concerted effort to borrow money from the chinese and transfer that money over into the pockets of a growing dependency class to create a bigger dependency class because that was the political base that was supporting the democrats and still does in this congress. and we watched this effort to expand the dependency class in america take place during the pelosi congress that began in

2007 through 2008 and in 2008 barack obama was elected president and now this congress went on steroids because they had a president that would sign the legislation instead of veto the legislation that was sent out of this congress. and what we saw happen was an accelerated debt and more money borrowed from the chinese and saudis and that $2.8 billion budget -- $2.8 trillion budget raced on up another $1 trillion. we've seen an additional $3 trillion that's been spent under this obama administration supported by nancy pelosi and harry reid. the american people rose up, mr. speaker. and they knew it was irresponsible. and they filled up the town hall meetings and saw what was happening. i guess two or three summers ago and the year might come to me and i might be confident enough to speak it into the

record, but we had an energy crisis with gas at $4 a gallon. and i believe that was the summer of 2008. that gas was at $4 a gallon. and i went back and did town hall meetings that filled up with people and they saw what was happening and there was an effort in this congress to shut down access to energy, a belief that if energy costs went up, people would use less and we remember then the speaker, nancy pelosi, saying, i'm trying to save the planet, i'm trying to save the planet. well, i think she believed that she was trying to save the planet and what i saw happening was the actions were driving up the cost of energy. that $4 gas issue finally broke and started to spiral back down wards by the election of 2008 but we had in august of that year a month long energy debate taking place here on the floor. when we were ready to go home for that august, we had several special orders that were cued up for the end of business that day, democrats offered a motion

to shut the place down and would have shut off the special orders about energy, some of the members here decided we're going to keep talking and so we came one right after another and eventually the speaker shut the lights down, not completely off, shut the microphones off, shut the television cameras off and turned them sideways and still we stood here for the month of august all the way into labor day every day making the case that we needed all energy all the time. that argument diminished when gas prices went back down again. it's before us again. and we must do an all energy all the time bill. i want to compliment devin nunez for all the work he's done on legislation i believe he'll introduce tomorrow on all energy all the time. america needs to have cheap energy. we need to have cheap energy in a way that everything we do costs energy. if you move anything it takes energy. if you have any product it takes energy to produce it, energy to deliver it, and

energy to go pick it up and bring it home. so the cost of energy is tied into the cost of everything that we have and do. and our america cannot be competitive with the rest of the world if we have high energy prices. and yet that 2008 year drove energy prices up $4 gas, we saw the crude oil prices go way over $100 a barrel, and we're looking at that happening again. we've had the president move to shut down drilling offshore by executive order. we've seen democrats in large numbers oppose opening up anwr for drilling. the arctic national wildlife refuge. i've been for drilling up there a long time. i've gone up there. we've drilled the north slope in the early 1970's, and if it did anything with the environment, it enhanced it, it didn't diminish it. and the strictest environmentalists we had couldn't fly over that country and point to a well and tell you how it's even defaced the

landscape or broken up the scenery, the wells are submersible and don't show up and there's notted radios to each of them but go on ice roads to service them in the wintertime. it's a good place to develop oil on the north slope and we need to get it. we need to drill offshore and drill in north dakota and montana and it spills over into canada, and we need to continue to bring canadian oil down into the united states and refine it here and be the best trading partner for the canadians they possibly can ask for. and if we fail to do so, they'll build a pipeline to the west and they'll pump that oil in the oil sands out to tankers that will take that oil to china and japan and places in asia. . mr. speaker, that's just the energy issue. and as this rolls forward, another summer we had the issue of health care. and as the effort came to pass

obamacare here in the house of representatives, the american people began to realize what was happening to their liberty. and they filled up the town hall meetings. we had town hall meetings in iowa that got so big that they had to be moved outside because there wasn't room inside the biggest building, biggest rooms we could find for all people that came to, in a constitutional fashion, petition the government peacefully for a redress of grievances. and they came and they were well informed and some of them had read the whole bill. and with great passion and sometimes with little tact and sometimes with great deference they made the case to me over and over again, they didn't want obamacare. they still don't want obamacare. and when it was passed here in the house they rejected it. so i spent not quite a year of my life fighting the passage of obamacare and since that period of time i've introduced legislation to repeal obamacare immediately after its passage on that late night last march. we're coming up about 11 months,

a little past 11 months since it's been passed into law. the american people still reject it. they want their liberty, they want their freedom, they want to manage their own bodies, manage their own health care, they want a free market system, they want a doctor-patient relationship. and they sent 87 new freshmen here to the house of representatives to ensure that obamacare would be repealed, that the funding to obamacare would be shut off and that we would see no more implementation or enforcement of obamacare. and what has it brought us? these 87 new freshmen that stand together on that one square? here's what it's brought us, mr. speaker. h.r. 2, presumably the second highest priority of the new speaker of the house, it brought us a new speaker of the house, speaker john boehner. and he sets the priorities at least by tradition for the first 10 bills that come out of the house, h.r. 1 through h.r. 10, and h.r. 2, the second highest

priority was the bill that repealed obamacare. the legislation that i'd introduced almost a year ago and teamed up with michele bachmann of minnesota and others, including connie mack of florida, and parker griffith of alabama, no longer in this congress, a number of others that were part of this original effort to introduce legislation to repeal obamacare and many others have signed on as co-sponsors and 178 that signed the discharge petition to repeal obamacare. the message was very clear. and h.r. 2 was debated and passed the house of representatives in the early stages here in the 11th congress last month, excuse me, in january, where it was sent over to the united states senate. that's an important step. another important step is to do as i've said since at least the middle of last summer, every appropriations bill, introduce

language in that bill that cuts off all -- off all funds that would be used to implement or enforce obamacare. that's an essential part of this. i'd gone back and read through the history of how this congress shut down the funding for the vietnam war and shut off a war that had gone on for over a decade and they did so by putting language in a continuing resolution that shut off the vietnam war. and it was language that said in 1974, and they started it in 1973, but notwithstanding any other provision of law, no -- none of the funs in this continuing resolution -- funds in this continuing resolution, for the vietnam war, or for appropriations during the vietnam war, notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds in this act and no funds heretofore appropriated shall be used to carry out offensive or defensive operations in the air over, the seas adjacent to or the land of

vietnam or its adjacent country. it's a bit of a paraphrase, but it makes the point succinctly, i believe, mr. speaker. when i read the debate on that appropriations bill and when i read the language of that, notwithstanding language that was put into these continuing resolution, that shut off the funds going to vietnam, to the point where bullets that were being unloaded on the dock presumably were loaded back up again. none of the funds could be used to carry out offensive or defensive operations. it cut off the supply support for south vietnam's military. we wondered, why was it that they ran in the face of the north vietnamese? they had nothing left to fight with, mr. speaker. their munitions were gone, they were played out. they didn't have heavy weapons, they didn't have light weapons that were well supplied and it brought about the collapse of the south vietnamese self-defense. and millions died in the

aftermath, not just in vietnam, in cambodia and other places in southeast asia. i disagreed with the decision that this congress made but i do agree that the language in the continuing resolution was effective in shutting off the funding to the vietnam war and similar language to the language that i crafted to go into the appropriation bills from this point forward that says essentially, notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds in this act and no funds previously appropriated shall be used to carry out the provisions of obamacare. that's the language that i sought to introduce and asked the rules committee to grant a waiver for, unsuccessfully, i might add. that's the language that i asked be written into h.r. 1, the continuing resolution, it's the language i tried to get offered

here on the floor of h.r. 1 that was ruled out of order and the amendments that i was able to get passed worked in capacity with danny rehberg of montana and others, danny rehberg who did very good work on this appropriations bill on h.r. 1. without his work we might not have had anything that was in order. because of his work we had eight amendments that were in order that were voted on. each of them cut off funding to obamacare in some version or another. and i compliment all of my colleagues to work on that. but now we reach this point where we've got to draw a line. h.r. 1 took the hill. it said none of the funds in this bill is going to be used to implement obamacare. no funds are going fund planned parenthood, no funds are going to be used to fund abortion anywhere in the world out of this continuing resolution. but that language was not included in the continuing resolution that was passed the night before last here in the house or maybe perhaps it was last night, my nights blur

together. that language was not included. we need better language than i'm suggesting here included in the next c.r. this government shuts down march 18 if we don't now extend its funding again. i'd like to get a solution that takes us to the end of the fiscal year. but standing on the hill and defending the hill to shut off all funding to obamacare since every republican in the house and the senate has voted to repeal obamacare, everybody in the house has voted to cut off all funding to obamacare at every opportunity and that's eight of them, we have this opportunity now to write a new c.r. and to write the language into it that does unfund obamacare, not just within the c.r., but what is automatically appropriated, automatic appropriations, mr. speaker, that are in the obama quare legislation -- obamacare legislation, i will say deceptively written, that appropriate funds that go forward whether or not this house acts, goes forward in perpetuity, perpetuity. that means forever, if anybody

out there is wondering what it is. and for a 10-year period of time there are automatic appropriations of $105.5 billion over 10 years that automatically fund the implementation and enforcement of obamacare if this house doesn't act to shut it off. obamacare is implemented if we do nothing. even if we pass the repeal, even if we don't authorize any new funding, $105.5 billion gets spent to implement it which means that the roots of obamacare go deep and the deeper they go, the harder they are to rip out. and i've said it must be ripped out by the roots, let's rip it out, mr. speaker, in this next c.r., let's retake the hill that we took with h.r. 1, let's hold the hill, let's stare the president down, let's stare harry reid down. if we're not willing to do that they will get everything that they're willing to fight for. this is the time for this new house, with these new 87 republican freshmen, every

republican that's voted to repeal and unfund obamacare, now needs to help us take the hill and hold the hill and stare the president down. let's fund the government so it functions legitimately, but let's not caven into a president who may well shut down the entire united states government in order to preserve his pet project, obamacare, which has been rejected by the american people and this congress resoundingly. with that, mr. speaker, i would thank you for your attention and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

at book tv.org including details about this weekend's live in depth with hiser to -- historian and get our schedules by email. sign up for our book tv alert. >> federal reserve chairman ben bernanke says a republican plan to cut $60 billion from the budget this year would result in about 200,000 lost jobs and slightly lower economic growth. slightly lower economic growth. that bill passed the house two